Battle.net Accounts Becoming Mandatory For WoW

An anonymous reader tips news that Blizzard will be requiring all World of Warcraft players to use Battle.net accounts to log into the game starting on November 11th. After that time, players who don't switch will be unable to play the game. Some time after the transition is complete, players will be able to "participate in cross-realm chat in World of Warcraft, create real-life friends lists, and communicate across different games." More details on the new Battle.net and what it will do are available in our Blizzcon wrap-up and interviews from August. Naturally, the idea that the new Battle.net is getting closer to deployment has sparked speculation that the StarCraft II beta might come along soon.

Comments

Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Pieroxy]

But what will it change? I mean, other than having to open an account at Battle.net, what is the news exactly?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

You get a free penguin pet, and there is speculation that this is a precondition for releasing StarCraft II.

As for Battle.net itself, it should allow you to chat in real time with friends playing other Blizzard games. Blizzard likely wants to use this to make it easier to leverage WoW into new franchises.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[tangent3]

It means your WoW guild leader can see that you are online playing Starcraft II instead of being in WoW during raid time. And that is 50 dkp minus.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Z34107]

For a while, Blizzard had little keygen token thingies that would generate a 1-time password for you to log in to your World of Warcraft account.

I wonder if these will cease to function after the migration to Battle.net accounts.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[AuMatar]

And if one account is banned, you lose online on all your games. So smart people will make separate accounts.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[malkir]

Of courrrrse they will. At the very least, that tokenizer will be used to log into BattleNET itself. If the existing ones are obsolete..i 'm sure they'll give them away in bulk. Every Blizzcon attendee got one for free, I don't even play WoW.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

or just abide by the rules like really smart people

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Really smart people usually prefer to figure out how not to get punished for breaking rules harder than they would be punished by abiding by the rules.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that Blizzard game accounts are banned on a per-game basis, even when linked to Battle.net

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Really smart people just don't cheat because they are smart enough to understand that it ruins the experience for all involved, including themselves. Noob.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[AuMatar]

Yes, because there will be no false positives whatsoever. And because all the rules are fair and deserve to be followed. And because with LAN play you can always choose to use an alternate way of networking for SC2.

Nope, I'll just be making a new SC2 only account.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Hadlock]

Basically, Blizzard is creating their own Steam-like competitor. You need a AAAAA level game that people are willing to register a new account for (like Valve did with Half-Life 2). Some people might bitch about it, but if you drink the Steam-Kool-Aid (like I do) it creates a better community atmosphere for those who play particular video games 10, 20 or even 80 hours a week. But enough about the community aspect, this is really a push to create Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam. Valve pioneered the idea of building a D.Distribution network on a AAAAA title, and Blizzard is following their buisness plan step for step, by requiring people to register a battle.net account for Starcraft 2 (and WoW). Between the two, they'll have how many tens of millions of registered customers ready and waiting to buy games through their digital distribution channel? On day 1 no less. Pretty cool, and damn smart. Whoever the executive was that pioneered this (at the cost of delaying SC2) is getting a phat performance bonus next year
 
One can only hope (dream?) that battle.net and steam will have some sort of interoperability down the road. Fenced gardens are great, but people aren't going to want to juggle Battle.Net, Steam and Games for Windows Live buddy lists.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: Do Battle.net accounts work with the Blizzard Authenticator?
A: Yes. If you use a Blizzard Authenticator, you will need it when merging the associated World of Warcraft account into the new Battle.net Account. The Authenticator will automatically transfer to the Battle.net Account during the merge process, and you will still need it when managing Battle.net Account information and logging in to the game. In addition, Blizzard Entertainment offers the Battle.net Mobile Authenticator, an application for mobile devices that players can use to protect a Battle.net account and any World of Warcraft accounts associated with it. In addition, Blizzard Entertainment offers the Battle.net Mobile Authenticator, an application for mobile devices that players can use to protect a Battle.net account and any World of Warcraft accounts associated with it. For more information on the Battle.net Mobile Authenticator, visit http://eu.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_GB&articleId=35970.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

AAAAA

What's that? The Alcoholics Anonymous Association for drunk drivers?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[cjfs]

this is really a push to create Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam.

It'll be nice to see some competition. Having one company control the distribution channel will cause issues over the long term when they get too comfortable. Blizzard's one of the few publishers that has the weight to compete.

I doubt they'd be quick with the friends list integration though. Third party tools will probably pop up long before.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Thanshin]

Whoever the executive was that pioneered this (at the cost of delaying SC2) is getting a phat performance bonus next year

Dear Mr. Hadlock

In the future, please refrain from requesting performance bonuses on public forums.

M.Morhaime.

P.S.: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking, as every other director's.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Tukz]

That's a pretty big "I think".

However, I think you are right.
Cheating isn't against any laws or even the EULA of the game.

So if I cheat in WC3 and get banned, I cannot see how they could legally block access to my other games.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[impaledsunset]

Unless you enjoy ruining the experience for everyone else.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every game has something in the EULA against using third-party programs (cheats) to modify the game.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[BenihanaX]

You appear to be confusing morality with intelligence.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Tridus]

No, they work fine after the conversion.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Really smart people just don't want to get locked in because they are smart enough to understand cross-game data-mining and the fact that they can no longer gift/sell a used game if they are all tied to one account.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard did not copied Valve with Battle.net.

Battle.net existed since 1997, way before Steam (2003).

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Jugalator]

Of course, I didn't RTFA

RTFASummary.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

You did not read carefully: he was not requesting performance bonus: he was trash-talking his competiors for the upcoming fights.

teh eXXecutive that pioneered this is gettin a PHAT performance bonus next year! I have the Mortalis!!! BWAHAHAHA!!!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the termination without prior notification part again. It says they can lock anyone out at any time for no reason other than that they feel like doing it.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Its forbidden by the rules but isn't bad? Hmm sounds like what the last serial killer used in his defense. You sir are a total waste of the oxygen your taking in.

v. cheated, cheating, cheats
v.tr.
1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
4. To elude; escape: cheat death.
v.intr.
1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
3. Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.
4. Baseball To position oneself closer to a certain area than is normal or expected: The shortstop cheated toward second base.
n.
1. An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle.
2. One who cheats; a swindler.
3. A computer application, password, or disallowed technique used to advance to a higher skill level in a computer video game.
4. Law Fraudulent acquisition of another's property.
5. Botany An annual European species of brome grass (Bromus secalinus) widely naturalized in temperate regions.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[MWojcik]

That's not true:

The way Battle.net accounts are currently set up, if you receive a suspension on a World of Warcraft account attached to that Battle.net account, it has no affect on any other World of Warcraft accounts that may also be attached.

Source: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=20464488049&pageNo=2&sid=1#39

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[PopeRatzo]

or just abide by the rules like really smart people

The AC presents an interesting philosophical issue here. "Do the "really" smart people "really" do better by "abiding by the rules""?

I think some recent science in the areas of biology and sociology would suggest "maybe not".

Have all of you always done better by "abiding by the rules"?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[PopeRatzo]

Really smart people just don't cheat because they are smart enough to understand that it ruins the experience for all involved, including themselves.

Yes, but the really, REALLY smart people...

Oh, nevermind.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[TheKidWho]

Battle.net as a digital distribution service did not exist since 1997, it was primarily a matchmaking service.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[PopeRatzo]

I'll bet there are cases where cheaters improved the game by forcing the developers to fix exploits and do some other maintenance.

Me, I'm not smart enough to cheat.

I find it interesting though that people who would never, ever cheat in an MMORPG would have no problem downloading the latest Arcade Fire album from sooperbigtorrentzzz.org

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[PopeRatzo]

What makes you think there will be "LAN play" for Starcraft 2? I wouldn't bet on it being in the finished product.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[PopeRatzo]

My god, Blizzard needs to find someone sentient to write their FAQs.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

whoooosh!!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[PopeRatzo]

Except when Blizzard and Steam inevitably merge it'll suck.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard + Steam = .... Rain?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[marams]

Ever heard of false positives? Try googling "linux wow ban" for a start.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[poetmatt]

it means your right to resell the game is completely trumped since you can't sell WOW without selling your other blizzard games if they are linked.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[poetmatt]

please. community is not an excuse for DRM. DRM doesn't create community, either.

This is all about their lockdown attempts. *LOTS* of people can and are bitching about it, and rightly so.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Admiral Ag]

It depends what you mean by "the rules". If you want to be a really successful criminal, it almost always means joining or founding some form of organized crime (and before people start, I'm including being elected to political office). Organized crime is simply a replacement trust network for society at large, and while they break society's rules, they don't break their own very often, since the penalty for doing so is usually far worse than anything society metes out.

In order to live almost any kind of life that could be called a "success" you have to form and sustain trust networks with others. It's just unavoidable.

Sometimes you can get away with breaking the rules, but this is quite uncommon. The only reason we don't think this is so is that we are so used to following the rules that we don't tend to notice when we're doing it.

There's also an unexamined assumption here (yet another example of Christianity's baleful influence on our culture) that people can actually choose to be good or bad. I'm not sure that this is the case for most people. Good people tend to be pained, shamed and distressed if they do bad things, so for such people there really isn't much of a sense in which they'd be "better off" breaking moral rules. Bad folks don't seem to care, so that's not a problem for them. Given that by the time most of us are old enough to ponder it, our moral characters are already formed, the idea of a "choice" is somewhat senseless. Ask yourself how many people you know who have radically altered their moral character. All such cases I know have involved some traumatic event, like going to jail, being the victim of a terrible crime, or some sort of head injury.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Ash-Fox]

Note: I am not the grand father poster, nor do I play WoW.

Is suspension considered to be a ban? This sounds very carefully worded to me.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Svartalf]

Heh... Considering that Linux users using WINE were tagged as breaking the rules, even though they weren't, I'd say that creating an account for each style of game accordingly might not be a bad idea.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[jiteo]

Blizzard already have their content distribution network - it's called BitTorrent.

No really, their downloader for the WoW client and patches is a (possibly modified/customized) branded BitTorrent client.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[cabjf]

Or you just create a new account for your WoW account. But I think selling existing WoW accounts is against their terms anyhow. It isn't about restricting the reselling so much as trying to create a fair environment in-game for everyone that worked for their levels and gear.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

In WoW's case, the cheaters forced Blizzard to push out the Warden to everyone.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[soupforare]

I'm not sure Valve is immune to the heat generated from some of the other DD services. Direct2Drive's recent per-week sales are now over. The buzz generated on slickdeals and the gamer forums I frequent was pretty high. I log in to steam last night and lo, they've got an extremely similar per-week deal going. It's even THQ games, which were what most people, again in my circles, were excited about on D2D. Titan Quest/SupCom/CoH/foo.
I can't believe that's coincidence. If hope blizz does get into it, I want more ridiculously cheap games.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

When asked at Blizzcon, they stated that the battle.net account would be banned from all games, they made a joke about how that would be 'real' punishment.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Game designers hate cheaters. If it were up to them, someone cheating in HL2 wouldn't be able to play any Blizzard games, either. But it's not really entirely up to them. There's marketing, customer service, and the legal department that all get to weigh in on the issue, too.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Its forbidden by the rules but isn't bad? Hmm sounds like what the last serial killer used in his defense. You sir are a total waste of the oxygen your taking in.

Because using software in an unintended fashion is the same as murdering people. That's good enough to be a BSA/RIAA/MPAA argument. There's degrees to morality.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Totenglocke]

And if Blizzard goes to digital distribution only, I will stop being a customer. I have every Blizzard game, but I'm considering not buying Starcraft 2 because you have to activate it online (meaning that Blizzard can take away your right to install the game at any time they choose).

DRM, online activation, and digital distribution will eventually be prevalent enough that I stop gaming. Explain how that's supposed to make companies money?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[ildon]

The difference is Blizzard currently has no delusions of destroying the game publishing companies like Valve did. Battle.net 2.0 is more like their own version of Facebook for their own games only.

I wouldn't expect to ever be able to buy a non-Blizzard game on Battle.net, and I wouldn't expect any more interoperability than Facebook and Myspace currently have (i.e. none). I could always be wrong, though!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[megamerican]

Read the termination without prior notification part again. It says they can lock anyone out at any time for no reason other than that they feel like doing it.

Exactly. It means they can ban you without proof as long as they "feel" you may have broken a rule.

When I quit WoW I decided to sell all of my gold. A day after selling the gold I was told I was banned for doing things against the essence of Warcraft. It didn't specifically mention selling gold or any cheat, just Warcraft's essence.

It was the best ban I've received in any game to tell the truth.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[dissy]

The AC presents an interesting philosophical issue here. "Do the "really" smart people "really" do better by "abiding by the rules""?

I think some recent science in the areas of biology and sociology would suggest "maybe not".

Have all of you always done better by "abiding by the rules"?

Not to sound like I am making a Clinton joke, but define "better".

For certain goals, cheating might be the best way to reach them.
For other goals however, avoiding cheating might be advantageous, and in some cases the only method for reaching your goals.

It depends what you are trying to do.

Want a high score or lots of gold? Next to impossible to track such a thing in game as cheating? Don't care about game balance? In that case, I would say cheating would be the best option for those goals.

Doing something where the odds of getting caught are high, and the consequences are a perm account ban and/or loss of money, then cheating sounds like a poor option to choose (Unless your goal is to get banned, in which case it sounds like keeping your $20 or whatever and just not signing up in the first place would be better.)

It's like lying. There are some people that hate doing it. However when placed in a situation where any answer to a question but one specific answer they are looking for results in very negative results... Then it is obvious the truth is not cared about in that situation by anyone but you, and you are being forced into answering for the purpose of "Choosing the desired outcome" instead of "being honest"

Like the cop asking if you know how fast you were going ;}
Wrong answers include "No", "Yes, just a little fast", and obviously "No officer, at those kinds of speeds, you have to keep your eyes on the road!"
The ONLY answer to not instantly get a fine imposed and higher insurance rates is "Yes officer, I was doing [speed limit minus 1-5mph] according to my speedometer."

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[BobMcD]

P.S.: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking, as every other director's.

Finally the mystery PvP nerfs have a motive...

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[LordLimecat]

Yes, because there will be no false positives whatsoever. And because all the rules are fair and deserve to be followed. And because with LAN play you can always choose to use an alternate way of networking for SC2.

Nope, I'll just be making a new SC2 only account.

Their game, their servers, so yes, by definition the rules are fair since they define fair. Also, false positives are very very rare-- false negatives are far more common. Remember, each false positive costs blizzard $180 a year.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[guywcole]

The ability to track a person across different characters/games is a serious problem Blizz is going to have to look at. A lot of people have non-guild alts so they can play the game in a non-social way when they want (to escape guild infighting, to unwind after a stressful day at work, to avoid stalker-ish people). Take that out, and the game loses value.

Remember, as penny arcade put it:

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

Without anonymity, responsibility exists, and a game where you have to act responsibly all the time is far less fun (it's real life by a different set of rules). Sometimes we just want to be fuckwads.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Snaller]

Except that's a lie - which I know first hand.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Chyeld]

For the most part, deals in Steam are through the publisher, not Valve. So it's likely that THQ is just having a marketing blitz.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Aklyon]

Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam.

It'll be nice to see some competition.

There's already Impulse. doesn't that count as compition?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[poetmatt]

no, it's very much about the reselling: it's against their EULA, and they basically aren't allowing it. This is grossly unconstitutional as per first sale and other things.

The game is "licensed" to you, per blizzard, and this is why the wowglider lawsuit is a big deal as well.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[RobDude]

Oversimplification is overly simple....

Cheating is awfully subjective and the consequences felt by other players from cheating varies from 'not at all' to 'a lot', depending on what is being done.

Some cheating violates the mechanics of the game. Cheats that let you fly or make you impossible to kill. Yes, you being invulnerable is one of those things that could negatively impact other players....but only if you PVP. If you spend the entire game, from 1-80, playing alone, in instances; who have you hurt? But that's a pretty extreme cheat....

A lot of cheating doesn't violate the mechanics of the game. Buying gold is 'cheating', but what does it really do? Arguably, it increases inflation. The counterpoint is that high level toons on old servers cause inflation and create a need for n0obs buying gold. In either case, anyone can get gold. There is an infinite amount on the server, the server creates more gold all the time. Buying gold just saves the purchaser *time*.

Really, most of WoW is simply a function of time spent in the game.

What, exactly, is the difference between me playing my character for 20 hours this weekend, farming gold, and increasing the total gold on the server by 10,000g or between me playing my character for 5 hours, doing something fun, and buying 8,000g from a website? In either case, my character ends up with 10,000g more than what it had. In the farming example, more inflation is created because I've introduced more gold into the game. The gold buying, arguably, only created 8,000g and would cause less inflation. But, really, the only meaningful difference is how much time *I* spent having fun and how much money *I* spent.

Being 'great' at WoW is simply a matter of how much time you will spend playing WoW. You can be a retarded monkey, but if you play 14 hours a day, you will hit the level cap, have great gear, and be able to find a great guild.

But, if you aren't willing to make that time commitment, 'cheating' allows you to play the game in a meaningful way. Is it fair that someone can buy gold and someone else can't? I don't know. But it's certainly no more unfair than paying extra money to get 3x experience with refer a friend. The only difference is who the money goes to; but the affect on the game is the same. People who are willing to 'cheat' get benefits that non-cheaters didn't and, arguably, 'devalue' the achievement of leveling.

Automation with bots, two (or more) boxing, refer a friend, buying gold, getting a friend to 'run you' through an instance, buying a character are all ways to get further in less time. All of them are unfair, some are considered 'cheating'. Hell, at release, getting a mount at 40 would have been cheating, but now it's not.

If you want to be strict about it - you can simply say that Blizzard makes the rules, and anything against the rules is 'cheating'. And that's fine and I wouldn't feel the need to argue. But when you say that 'really smart people don't cheat because it ruins the experience....' I feel like you are making an awfully bold claim, without any substance.

Some cheating can negatively impact your gaming experience, certainly; but there is also cheating that won't affect you at all. I've bought gold, two box, and wrote my own fish bot. Oddly enough; two boxing has had a much larger affect on my gaming experience than the other two (and that's the only one that isn't considered cheating!). The gold I bought served only to save my low level horde character a run to a neutral AH to exchange gold with my high level alliance. That purchase saved me an hour or so of death running - maybe more. In either case, my level 1 horde guy would end up with 1000g. I wrote the fishbot because I didn't want to spend an entire day leveling up fishing. I spent more time writing the bot than it would have taken to level up my fishing by hand. The bot was simply 'more fun'. I fished until my skill was maxed out (which is exactly how much fishing I would have done by hand). In either case, my fishing skill was going to get maxed out....my cheating didn't change the gaming experience for anyone else, other than myself.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[VGPowerlord]

For the most part, deals in Steam are through the publisher, not Valve. So it's likely that THQ is just having a marketing blitz.

While that explains the mid-week and week-long sales, it doesn't really explain why Steam usually has one product/set of products on sale every weekend.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[RobDude]

Arguably, they did break the rules.

At least at the time of purchase, the box clearly said the game *required* Windows XYZ to play the game. I don't remember what version of Windows they printed on the box.

You certainly could make the claim that, while WINE didn't give the players an 'edge'; they were breaking the rules. It's a bit of a stretch though....

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Hurricane78]

What the... Trolling moderators again?

Guys: Being in denial, closing your eyes, stamping your foot and yelling "NO! NO! NO!" does not mean that it's not existing! Put off the "treehugger happyworld of love peace and global harmony" reality distortion glasses once in a while, would you?

I AM a game designer, I HAVE integrated cheating and trolling players, and interestingly, nearly all the problem that others have, are gone! Trolls and cheaters are humans too! If you try to understand them, instead of being in denial, you can actually do something about it.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[MBGMorden]

Remember, each false positive costs blizzard $180 a year.

Well, not really. Usually a false positive can be cleared up easily enough, and that's the point. Even on the (quite) rare chance of a false positive, a phone call and an explanation is usually all it takes to resolve the issue. Compared with the alternative (ie, Blizzard just letting bots, hackers, etc run rampant in their games without any care), I don't particularly mind the policies they have in place.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Chyeld]

Because their marketing department works hard to sell the idea to the people selling games on their platform and for the past year they've been lucky enough to be able to pull in a bunch of 'big name' publishers in a manner spaced widely enough that they can coordinate them.

Plus, it's rarely one. If you have Steam installed and go to the store page, you should see in the mid section of the page a 'list of games' box with four tabs: New Releases, Top Sellers, Coming Soon, and Specials.

I've yet to log into Steam and see that specials tab empty. It's something that hits all the time, they just promote the shit out of the weekend deals, just like any other retailer.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[MBGMorden]

With MMO's though you're not really buying the game. Want World of Warcraft the actual game? It's free on a ton of demo DVD's. The whole friggen game. Alternatively, you can download the game online legally. What your initial payment (essentially a signup fee) and continued monthly payments are buying you is an account on an online game, not the game itself which is more or less distributed for free.

Trying to resell that is no more logical than trying to claim fire sale doctrine on your Sam's Club membership.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[toolie]

And if Blizzard goes to digital distribution only, I will stop being a customer. I have every Blizzard game, but I'm considering not buying Starcraft 2 because you have to activate it online (meaning that Blizzard can take away your right to install the game at any time they choose).

I'd be way more leery of them selling three separate single player campaigns instead of one like SC was. That right there made me lose any interest I had in SC2 at all.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Mortimer82]

Blizzard never uses the word "banned", they say things like "Permanent Suspension" or "Account Closure".

And yeah, I know people who have had 1 of their 2 WoW accounts banned on a battle.net account, but the other account is completely unaffected.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[mabhatter654]

That's what the swirly thing between continents is!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[DrVomact]

Lucky me...I just canceled my WoW account last night, so I don't have to care about this. I'm playing Aion now. I have yet to see whether the end-game content (flying with angelic wings to engage in PvPvE in the space between two half-worlds) is truly as amazing as they are promising, but so far I find the game to be mostly a refreshing change from WoW, which had just gotten to be a ridiculous habit. Well, it could be more refreshing—I was just killing bandits at some farm...which could have been right out of a WoW quest, complete with pumpkins.

But there is a death penalty (it gets pretty expensive to buy back the experience that is being held in hock if you die a lot, so I'm going to have to break my habit of disregarding all risk that I picked up in WoW). I've been playing a week now, and I still haven't gotten over the sheer beauty of the world...and the female character models. (You can tell who the cross-dressing guys are by the fact that they all max out the booby slider during character creation.) I keep asking myself how people can fight in clothes that looks so fine. Even the low level gear looks better than anything WoW came up with for level 80s.

Oh, and the best thing of all: I haven't been turned down by groups because my gear is substandard. That alone justifies the switch, in my opinion.

You get your angel-wings at level 10, but your flying ability is very limited at that point—and woe unto you if you let the timer run out when you're at high altitudes. I've also found that flying isn't as easy as it looks...it's going to take practice. I keep getting disoriented. Better camera controls would help.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[AuMatar]

No, they don't define fair. They define allowed. Fair is an ethical concern and can't be decided by a single party. They do get to define "allowed" and punish you if caught, but that doesn't make it fair.

As for false positives being fairly rare- they still happen. I know people they happen to. In fact they happen frequently when people complain to GMs, since GMs tend to throw in their own personal opinion on things like world PvP- you can talk to 3 GMs and get 3 different answers on what's legit and what isn't. I see no reason to take that risk, it will be separate accounts for me.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Having" to open an account is the problem itself.

What brainiac thinks you can just shove your nose in the air and demand 10 million people do something? If 500,000 quit because it isn't worth the effort (the game is getting old), that'll be worth many times more than this guy's lifetime salary.

The correct course of action is to just enable the accounts on Battle.net automatically, with no need for anything from the user, save, perhaps, a one-time confirmation yes/no clickie. And even that will lose a small amount of people over just purely transparent, automated account creation.

For a bunch of people supposedly skilled in issues across 10 million deployments, you'd think they'd be aware of 1 in 1000 issues, much less 1 in 20 ones.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse intelligence and compassion. Just because someone is "smart" doesn't mean they're going to give a shit about your experience. Maybe they have a cruel streak and revel in your frustration.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Domint]

What you fail to understand is where a significant number of gold suppliers get the gold that they pass on to you - by compromising the accounts of others, robbing the character blind, disenchanting everything they can't flood the auction house with, pulling everything they can from any associated guild banks, then setting up the character as a gold/resource farmer and shuffling all the rewards over to a 3rd party account until the actual owner of the account realizes they're not in control any more and contacts Blizzard to go through the dance of character restoration. Heck, the less moral ones will even go out of their way to target players that just made a purchase from them, because they know they'll have a better return on investment. By purchasing gold from gold suppliers, you are directly impacting the experience of other players in a way much more severe than most people realize.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[DarthVain]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Blizzard (Activision) announced that there would be no LAN plan included with Starcraft 2. They be sayin' it be because of them scurvy pirates, yarr! They be thinkin' of the children, yo ho ho!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[MBGMorden]

The WoW Linux issue was sorted out and ceased to be relevant YEARS ago.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Totenglocke]

Well, each campaign is supposed to be as long as all three campagins combined from SC, so while it's not a new "game", it definitely qualifies as long enough for an expansion / sequel. I just hope that they charge at least a little less for the second two - say $40 instead of $50-60.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[gad_zuki!]

Excellent point. When it comes to powerleving and automation that means the cheater now has 5 level 60 avatars when he really should have one. The game designers didnt expect that many high levels so now there's less rare gear to go around.

The typical reaction is just to up the number of rare items or whatever rare resource automation is targeting. A 'real world' scarcity becomes impossible. Your not in a shared universe anymore, but just seeing the same landscapes as you all mine some materials that keeps popping up. This is also why MMO games become more like dumb arcade games as they age. You cant do all this neat world building when everyone is gaming the system. Outside of high level guild-raiding its essentially a simple one player game that other people can socialize on.

All the rationalizations for cheating fail when you consider the system as a whole.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[AuMatar]

I suggest you reread my entire comment one or two more times.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[thejynxed]

This is true, and has also doomed SC2 to never being seriously played in South Korea. Or played at all in game tournaments, since those strictly forbid outside internet connections on the competition floor - outside connections now required due to SC2 being tied to the shitty Battle.NET system.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[mgrivich]

There's also an unexamined assumption here (yet another example of Christianity's baleful influence on our culture) that people can actually choose to be good or bad.

If people cannot choose to be good or bad, there is no such thing as good or bad. If there is no such thing as bad, Chistianity cannot be bad (or baleful, as you put it.) Hmm. Seems to be a contradiction. You may want to check your premises.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[llzackll]

That's deep.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[KingPin27]

Battle.net as a digital distribution service did not exist since 1997, it was primarily a matchmaking service.

but with the advent of Match.Com and Eharmony the matchmaking services of blizzard dwindled into near non-existence.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no good or bad. There is competence and incompetence.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well damn Blizzard all to hell for not making sure that their Windows based game security enforcement module for their Windows based game doesn't accidentally flag Linux users who are running the Windows based game security enforcement module for the Windows based game under an unsupported and incomplete Windows emulation layer on Linux.

And Windows users are supposed to be the dumb ones?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[cyn1c77]

The parent post is so naive and self-centered that I can't believe that it was modded up as insightful.

The poster's logic is that buying gold and using bots doesn't hurt anyone and helps me out so it isn't really cheating....

Let me help out out. Blizzard says those two activities are cheating and, like it or not, Blizzard is the Dungeon Master. There's your definition right there. Not to mention that they can ban you if they catch you doing either one.

You say that your cheating doesn't hurt anyone... what about the other fair players that have to invest 10 times more personal time in the game than you to get to the level cap and make enough gold to equip themselves? What about the people your "purchased" gold was stolen from? What about the items your farming bots took that could have been given to actual player-controlled toons in the farming areas farming the area at the same time as you? In all cases, you are inconveniencing real life humans because you are too lazy or greedy to play fair.

You need a real world analogy to drive the point home? It's like buying a term paper off the internet, copying test answers off the guy next to you, or paying someone to rob someone else. You're staying competitive with people who are working harder than you by sucking off them so you can have more free time for yourself.

You're acting unfairly to gain an advantage over other players: That is the definition of cheating. And remember that time is money, friend!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[DarthVain]

Yes you seem very hopeful! :)

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[DarthVain]

Actually not really.

Considering the network infrastructure and internet penetration of South Korea VS North America, it shouldn't matter in the least.

Sure applied over here, and our at best 5MB connections it may be problematic, but when 100MB is the norm it might be a bit more feasible.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The ONLY answer to not instantly get a fine imposed and higher insurance rates is "Yes officer, I was doing [speed limit minus 1-5mph] according to my speedometer."

Oh yeah, lying to the officer will work so well considering that you've been clocked going over the posted speed limit with a radar gun. I'm sure the officer will just give you a warning since you were so clever as to think you could lie and not get a speeding ticket.

The last time I got a speeding ticket you know what I did? I was honest. And it saved me money.

The officer asked me if I knew how fast I was going. I said "Yes sir, I do."

Then he asked me how fast I was going. I told him "I must have hit 92 or 93 miles per hour there. The folks in front of me were just poking along so as soon as we crested the hill and I got a chance to pass I looked over to where you guys usually sit and didn't see you so I just pulled around them and put my foot in it."

He took that in and then said "I'm going to write you up for going 70 miles per hour this afternoon sir."

So instead of getting a ticket for going 27 or 28 miles per hour over the posted speed limit I got a ticket for going 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[RobDude]

I'd really love to seem some numbers/statistics (if they even exist) on the frequency of what you describe.

Gold sellers aren't inherently immoral. And, certainly, people who hack accounts are going to do so, regardless of any monetary reward. So, I see this as two completely separate problems.

Insecure accounts are always going to be a target for hackers. If they aren't going to sell the gold and items for real money; there are still plenty of people who would still be willing to do it for virtual items and virtual rewards.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[RobDude]

That's an awfully big assumption you are making...

"When it comes to powerleving and automation that means the cheater now has 5 level 60 avatars when he really should have one"

Years ago, I used WoWGlider to automate my game play. I didn't use it build an army of maxed out level 60 characters....I used it so that I could keep pace with my friends who had more free time to play the game.

"We're going to play on Saturday - going to do the deadmines, want to come?"

'The deadmines? What level are you? I'm only 12'

"12? Dude - we're all 19. Why didn't you play last week?

'I had to go to work man'

"Bummer. Well, if you get up to 19 or even like 16 you could totally come with"

'Okay, I'll see what I can do'

So, I could run my bot while I did house work or something and keep up. The net result was no different than my actually playing the game.

And even with a bot, you'd level significantly slower than you would with refer a friend.

For all of my cheating - gold buying, bot using (the fish bot I wrote myself, I've also used WoWGlider and WoWBot (I think that's what it was. It went open source and was written in C#), two boxing (which isn't considered cheating by Blizzard, officially) I've never even hit the level cap. My highest character is 60-something (the cap is 80 last I checked).

I'm just not willing to invest large quantities of time into the game; but the game is still more enjoyable to me if I cheat than if I don't.

Claiming that all cheaters are destroying the game seems awfully overzealous to me.

You might as well say 'Quitting your job and playing 80 hours a week is cheating!'. People like that advance through content faster than expected then have nothing to do. They are more likely to grief lowbies. They have more gold and better items. They can out level everyone who doesn't have 80 hours a week to play. It gives them an unfair advantage and they get top pick of all the raid groups, the best gear, the best guilds, the best pvp ranks, etc, etc...

Basically, what it comes down to is being successful and having an enjoyable experience in WOW is about how much time you can devote to it. More time = more stuff = better character.

If you use all of your time to play WoW - that's considered fine; even though it introduces all of the same problems you've talked about in association with cheating.

If someone has more spendable income than time and is willing to use money to avoid hours of grinding in the game...he's a dirty cheater.

I'm fine with the title of 'dirty cheater'; but I disagree with the idea that my cheating negatively affects anyone else.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Pollardito]

it's also a ton of gear piled onto your characters, are you suggesting that people don't ever sell MMO accounts?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Domint]

True, I don't have any concrete statistics to throw around in this case - I just have my own first-hand experience. In the past 6 months, a shocking number of people affiliated with a guild that I am a part of have had their accounts compromised exactly as I have described (somewhere around 15 to 20). I play on a low population RP server in a lower population guild for the lower population faction, so I could only imagine how this trend would play out on a larger, more end-game focused server. But let's err on the low side and say about 100 people get compromised every 6 months per server as I described. Across all WOW servers (241, I just checked), that would be 24,100 people every 6 months. If only 10% of the cases were specifically to sell the ill-gotten gain back to others for real world money, that's 2,410 people who have had there characters flat out ruined for cash - every 6 months. Just food for thought the next time you whip out the old credit card with plans to buy your umpteenth epic mount - do you really know where that gold comes from? No. You don't.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[UltraOne]

Darth, please check your sarcasm detector. It seems to be off or broken.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[int69h]

They addressed this specifically at this years Blizzcon. Bans are per game, not per account.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[vxvxvxvx]

He took that in and then said "I'm going to write you up for going 70 miles per hour this afternoon sir."

So instead of getting a ticket for going 27 or 28 miles per hour over the posted speed limit I got a ticket for going 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

ROFLS! He didn't go easy on you, they always do that. You fell for it too, you thought the police officer was being nice. Nothing like fooling people into being pleased with getting a ticket!

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you know, you could just not be an asshat, and then none of your accounts will be banned.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Toonol]

Well, it gives good support to those that argued that Blizzard's stated reasons for requiring it for Starcraft 2 are bunk. It's obviously not for performance or features, it's a "corporate strategy to incentivize customers into the battlenet channel to monetize that leverage."

I doubt they'll charge for BNET, but they're sure as hell going to start trying to nickle/dime money out of customers. The accountants and marketers are running Blizzard now, it's pretty obvious. They're pulling a SONY.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Carra]

I just checked their Titan quest package. 10 euros + 20 euros for expansion. Even at half price that will be 15 euros. The D2D deal was for 5 pounds (~5.6 euros).

There's competition. D2Drive, gamersgate, impulse,...

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[NetDanzr]

I think the grandparent post author and you simply have a different definition of gaming. For the grandparent, gaming is an activity, which should be made as enjoyable for the gamer as possible. Just like reading a book: read what you like, where you like and when you like. For you, gaming seems to be work. You use terms like "investing time" into a game or analogies like writing a term paper. Following my book analogy, for you gaming seems to be reading a boring book because everyone else is reading it.

I don't play MMOs, so I can't really say who's right or wrong (if it's even possible to say), but from what it's worth, I prefer the grandparent poster's view. In my single player experience, when I encounter a showstopper or a long, tedious task (the former in adventures, the latter in RPGs or RTSs), I go consult a walkthrough or employ a cheat. I prefer relaxing with games.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[MBGMorden]

Not legally. The account data is technically property of the game company and in almost all cases cannot be (legally) resold.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Draek]

But, if you aren't willing to make that time commitment

...the intelligent person realizes its time to switch to another game altogether, and stick to MSN or GTalk for socializing if that's what you crave.

Also, you fail at economics. If gold were truly infinite, so would be inflation and gold's use as currency would be meaningless.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFLS! He didn't go easy on you, they always do that. You fell for it too, you thought the police officer was being nice. Nothing like fooling people into being pleased with getting a ticket!

Apparently you're not aware of the HUGE difference in fines in my state for traveling that much over the speed limit versus a mere 5 miles per hour over. Not to mention the seriousness with which my insurance company would have regarded it.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[geekoid]

Why do you think smart equals having the same goals as you?

Also, there are reasons to be band that isn't cheating, N00b.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[geekoid]

Yes, but the really, REALLY smart people...

are too busy to talk about this nonsense.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[geekoid]

Until day two when he sees everyone in the guild is playing and needs to offer 1000 dkp to get anyone to join a raid.

And he only does that until he has saved enough allowance to buy SCII

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[RobDude]

I fail at economics as much as you fail at reading comprehension.

The gold on WoW servers appears magically as far as the game is concerned. There is no limit on the amount of gold on a WoW server, in any practical sense.

If you want to get all asinine about it; the gold isn't infinite....it's limited by the storage ability of the WoW servers (which is damn near limitless for all practical purposes). There are open source 'rip-offs' of the WoW servers that are completely functional. You can download them and look at the database structure and consider the limitations of your own hardware....

But yes, the gold is, for all practical intents and purposes, infinite. Same with the supply of monsters. When you kill one, it will respawn. The servers constantly respawn monsters. You will never, ever, kill all of the murlocs - no matter how many you kill, they will always come back. When they come back, they will always have gold and various items.

The supply of gold is infinite. That doesn't mean that players have access to all of it at once. It just means no matter how many times they kill and loot something, they can always kill it again, loot it again, and the WoW universe now has more gold.

I'm guessing you are either a jackass who wanted to argue on the internet or someone who hasn't ever played WoW. Either way, your comment is pretty childish.

I'd argue that the intelligent person is able to recognize WoW for what it is; a game. And act accordingly. Since I've yet to hear a compelling argument for how my cheating negatively impacts anyone else, I have no moral objection to cheating. It's simply a trade off.

Regardless, intelligence says nothing of character or morality. Even if cheating *does* hurt other people, being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean a person wouldn't chose to cheat anyway. Intelligent people can be assholes too.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[RobDude]

And when you buy an item on the AH - do you really know where that item came from? No. You don't.

Of course, people who steal accounts take any items of value and list them on the AH. So, buying items from the AH just contributes to the problem. Do you verify that the seller is an honest guy before you buy?

I guess what I'm saying is that (both in game and in real life) there is always a chance that someone is running a scam. When you buy something from a garage sale *it could* be stolen. And you buying it you *could* be helping finance future criminal activity.

Would you argue that, like gold buyers, anyone who buys items off EBay and Criagslist are supporting theft? I mean, even if it's just 1% of deals that come about as a result of criminal activity; we are talking HUGE AMOUNTS of crime.

Odds are you don't. If you do feel that way, then pretty much everyone is guilty of something. Even buying a pair of shoes means you are supporting slave labor and child labor. Do you *really* know where each part of your PC came from? Do you really know that none of the items you buy help to support these immoral things?

Me? Personally? I'll keep buying WoW Gold and computers and food and the occasional used item off EBay or criagslist. If I have a reason or even a suspicion that I'm dealing with criminals, I'll avoid it. But I'm not going to *not* do these things on the off chance that something bad *could* happen.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Draek]

The gold on WoW servers appears magically as far as the game is concerned. There is no limit on the amount of gold on a WoW server, in any practical sense.

Technically true, but irrelevant. What matters for inflation purposes is the amount in the *players' hands*, and that can (and is) limited by Blizzard through manipulation of drop rates, in-game fees for services, equipment and consumables, and such measures. By buying gold, you alter that balance leading to inflation leading to anger from non-cheaters leading to calls to ban your cheating ass from the server. Simple economics.

Regardless, intelligence says nothing of character or morality. Even if cheating *does* hurt other people, being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean a person wouldn't chose to cheat anyway. Intelligent people can be assholes too.

Actually, that's debatable. There are whole schools of thought formed around the idea that only the stupid and the ignorant commits evil. Regardless, however, by most definitions of the word somebody who negatively impacts himself without a comparatively larger, positive impact on others *is* an idiot, the proof that cheaters doesn't positively impact others' enjoyment of the game ought to be obvious, and as I (and many others) have shown, cheating does impact yourself negatively at mid- and long-term, therefore cheating *is* idiotic.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Admiral Ag]

Your argument doesn't follow. Free will might well be an illusion, but that doesn't mean we should stop locking up criminals or cracking down on fraud or that the actions of such people would stop making the lives of others worse.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[thejynxed]

Yes, but since the popularity in S. Korea relies on -LAN- play, not internet play... GG On Ur Phail Acti-Blizz.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[mgrivich]

If free will is an illusion, then there is no "should," there is only "must." We do what the laws of physics require: no more, no less. If we lock up criminals, we do it because that is what our program tells us to do. If we murder, we do that because that is what our program tells us to do. You cannot ascribe right to wrong to a human any more than you can ascribe right or wrong to a hurricane. Both are mere a collection of atoms, moving under laws, yes?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[cyn1c77]

To extend your analogy to life... Do you think that life should be as enjoyable as possible for you at the expense of others?

Reading a book or playing a single player game is something you are doing completely alone, so feel free to do whatever you want.

But when you are playing a MMORPG like WoW (where the keywords are "massively multiplayer online" and "world," you are playing with a community of other people, and by cheating, you are effectively fucking over the members of the community that do not cheat.

If you have never played a MMORPG I know it sounds silly. I didn't really understand it myself until I spent some time playing WoW. But when you have a few free months and $200 extra dollars, try leveling a WoW toon to the level cap, farming for gold, mats and gear. It is pretty fun, but there are definitely long and tedious parts of leveling... they even have a term for it called "grinding" because that is what your teeth are doing. And collecting materials is called "farming."

Neither of those descriptor verbs sound exciting because they aren't. Then can be relaxing, unless you have a really busy raiding schedule and then you need to spend extra hours "playing" to get supplies to raid the next day. At that point it can be a chore. And for the people who do it as the Blizzard intended, it can be frustrating when someone buys stolen gold (possibly from your character!) or uses a bot to save themselves time.

As others have said, widespread use of this causes in game inflation... requiring you to spend even MORE time farming to get what you need.

So I am not trying to be rude, but until you have played one of those community-based games for a while (or spent a lot of time around someone who does) you really can't have formed an educated opinion on the matter. And as far as playing to have fun, that is what everyone is trying to do. But the online aspect of games has the potential to definitely make things more fun, but it also can introduce cheaters and griefers who want to have fun at the expense of others... either explicitly or implicitly.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[TrekkieGod]

Before I get accused of "cheating" myself, I'll go ahead and start by stating I don't play MMO's.

Let me help out out. Blizzard says those two activities are cheating and, like it or not, Blizzard is the Dungeon Master. There's your definition right there.

The player is paying Blizzard for the subscription account. Do you know what that means? It means Blizzard isn't the one with the moral right to make the rules.

You say that your cheating doesn't hurt anyone... what about the other fair players that have to invest 10 times more personal time in the game than you to get to the level cap and make enough gold to equip themselves?

That's like saying that by paying the neighbor's kid to mow my lawn, I'm hurting all the other neighbors who had to spend time off their busy schedule to mow their own lawns. Or that by using a roomba to vaccuum my house, I'm somehow hurting all the people who vacuum without bots.

You presumably play the game for entertainment. If you don't finding grinding entertaining, you're paying extra to skip it, or automating the crappy process so you can get to what you consider the fun part. If you're not willing to spend the money and want to "invest 10 times more personal time" to avoid doing that, that's a choice you made. It's a trade-off, just like mowing the lawn yourself or paying the kid. Making your own dinner or going to a restaurant. Vacuuming or using an automated device.

What about the people your "purchased" gold was stolen from?

Stealing gold from somebody else would indeed be unethical, but you can't expect the buyer to somehow divine the difference between stolen and farmed gold. So the cheating happened by the thief, not the buyer.

What about the items your farming bots took that could have been given to actual player-controlled toons in the farming areas farming the area at the same time as you?

Why does it matter if a real person or a bot is controlling the player that got the item instead of you? Either way, you didn't get it. Seems like the problem is that you resent having to go through that work. Maybe you should get a bot yourself. If using a bot removes the fun for you, but not for the other person, why do you care, you'd be doing the exact same thing with the exact same results if a human was controlling the other character. If grinding itself isn't fun, the solution isn't condemning other people for skipping it, but rather to skip it yourself, or don't play games that require that much investment in time, or communicate to blizzard that they need to change the mechanics of the game and remove the fucking boring parts that everyone hates to play.

In all cases, you are inconveniencing real life humans because you are too lazy or greedy to play fair.

No, none of those cases you described demonstrated any inconveniencing to any other player. Unless you consider that others not suffering as much as you do is an inconvenience to you. Waaa, I need to work 60 hours a week to make $70,000 a year, while Tom Cruise makes millions for 3 months of work in a movie. He's inconveniencing me!!!

You need a real world analogy to drive the point home? It's like buying a term paper off the internet, copying test answers off the guy next to you, or paying someone to rob someone else. You're staying competitive with people who are working harder than you by sucking off them so you can have more free time for yourself.

No, those are not accurate analogies. Not writing your own term paper and copying test answers are unethical because the point of term papers and tests is to evaluate your knowledge, the end goal isn't the paper or the solution to the problems of the test, and it most certainly isn't for entertainment. If you copy somebody else's work, your knowledge isn't being evaluated. If you pay somebody else for ownership rights to

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Meski]

Possibly Blizzard will alter the way they do bans, so a ban on WOW doesn't ban SC2. Then again maybe not. Ive got two separate WOW accounts that are 'linked' by a common authenticator - would a ban on one account propagate to the other?

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Meski]

Some of their GMs do talk like that. (wonders if they would pass the Turing test)

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Meski]

It's all about selling characters, not games. Noone's going to pay you a cent for an empty account, even if Blizzard did allow it. Actually maybe they should allow it, and reset the characters on the account back to level 1 at time of transfer. :)

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Meski]

"Having" to open an account is the problem itself.

What brainiac thinks you can just shove your nose in the air and demand 10 million people do something?

You disregard the attraction of the free penguin pet.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Tukz]

From that specific game, yes.

I doubt they are legally allowed to lock me out from ALL my purchased games, in their service, permanently.

At least in my country anyway.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[DarthVain]

As does yours...

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Pollardito]

Yet they're still sold all the time, and enough people are doing it that it's a multi-million dollar business. So if you think you might want to sell your account, don't use one account for all your games together.

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The Warden was around long before WoW. Ask any old school Diablo player

Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA

[murdocj]

Amazing how people who cheat always manage to come up with lengthy posts justifying it. As to how it ruins the game for other people, guess what, trying to find a resource when there's gold farmer bots hitting resources 24x7 is a pain. Having people buy gold means that if I play within the rules of the game, I can't afford to buy in game items. Having people buy characters on EBay means that I end up grouping with someone who doesn't know how to play. I can come up with more examples, but basically yeah, cheating screws over other players. If you respect other players, don't cheat. If you feel like cheating, use cheat codes in a single player game, where it really can't affect anyone else.

Look, if you find the game boring, then there's a really simple solution: don't play it. Really smart people don't play games they don't enjoy.

Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN servers

[Anonymous Coward]

D2LagZero (IP Address 190.54.36.11) is a great Server for my WoW CLIENT to auth in Battlenet protocol.

Oh, wait you mean The pwners of Battle.net are forcing my CLIENT into their service contract? Can you say entrapment? anti-trust should clear this up like it split Microsoft into Micros~1 and Micros~2...

Preparing for SC2

[majorme]

Those are some of the promised features SC2 will have. Just a few, though.

And still...

[Fo0dNippl3]

WoW players the world over cried out in anger over yet another small change.

Re:And still...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it's still annoying. It's just another way for Blizzard to mine customer data and spamvertise more. In the end, it's really just five minutes of my time wasted filling out a form so they can try and sell me more crap. Anybody who plays WoW only gets exactly zero benefit from this.

That said, you'd think WoW players would be a bit more concerned about, oh, I don't know, the constant server crashes, rolling restarts, major patch bugs (how the HELL do you break an entire MMO by putting a typo in the credits.txt file!? Oh, right, you release the checksum for the rolled up patch file WITHOUT the typo taken into account), and just generally utter crap technical quality of the game. But the same people who will cry and moan for hours about five minutes of form filling for this are the same fanboy idiots who will go onto the forums after a whole day of downtime and make up endless excuses for Blizzard's failure, even though no other modern MMO suffers anything close to that level of technical dysfunction.

I guess what I'm saying is, what more would you expect? WoW players aren't really known for being particularly blessed by common sense. They're paying $15 a month for one of the worst maintained games out there, and they're HAPPY about it.

I like WoW and all, but the way Blizzard runs it since the Activision merger, anybody who's still paying for their awful service is an imbecile.

Re:And still...

[elrous0]

When a guy is selling you crack, you don't complain that his apartment is dirty. He can pretty much slap you in the face and you'll still come back for more.

Re:And still...

[rjolley]

That said, you'd think WoW players would be a bit more concerned about, oh, I don't know, the constant server crashes, rolling restarts, major patch bugs[...], and just generally utter crap technical quality of the game [...] even though no other modern MMO suffers anything close to that level of technical dysfunction.

You're joking right?

Re:And still...

[drinkypoo]

When a guy is selling you crack, you don't complain that his apartment is dirty. He can pretty much slap you in the face and you'll still come back for more.

You might complain, but you probably won't say it to his face. And you'll still go and buy the crack.

Re:And still...

[brkello]

Uh, have you never played any other MMO on the face of the planet? I know the WoW hate is strong on this forum...but WoW is pretty much the gold standard on how to run an MMO at this point. Then you have to insult people who play the game as not having common sense? Hmm, probably just a troll. But if you actually believe what you write, you are living in a fantasy world.

Re:And still...

[Chris Burke]

You might complain, but you probably won't say it to his face. And you'll still go and buy the crack.

Ah, but if the dealer set up an online forum that he didn't really read...

Re:And still...

[babywhiz]

I just want my pet! They can keep throwing small bones, as long as the server is up at Raid time...

This is great news

[malkir]

This means that the SC2 beta will be released November...December at the latest. The multiplayer game is polished and ready to be played, from my personal discussed with my Blizzard friends they are simply waiting on BNet to roll out. The fact that they chose to pilot it for WoW instead of testing internally with SC2 just shows that they're confident it's in a solid state.

Fuck yes, finally my beta key will be active :D

Re:This is great news

[malkir]

D'oh, after re-reading - this is Bnet-1, not Bnet-2. Still, closer :x

Re:This is great news

[DrVomact]

This means that the SC2 beta will be released November

I know you think that everyone knows all the acronyms you know...but I don't. So what is SC2???

Re:This is great news

[WuphonsReach]

SC2 = Star Craft 2 (Real Time Strategy game played in 3rd person god mode.)

Buggy

[jpmorgan]

The implementation seems buggy. I don't play WoW anymore, but I logged into my email this morning to find out some guy used the account migration stuff to link my inactive account to his battle.net account. Well, Blizz have never been good at getting things right the first time.

Re:Buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

So he had your password?

At least come up with plausible bullshit if you're going to troll.

Re:Buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a troll, happened to me and at least to 16 other people I know (guild mates and RL friends). I'm not sure how, but if your account is not linked to a battle.net account, and they know your email, they can link that account to their battle.net account and activate it as legitimate users.

Hell, even Blizzard has warnings on their official forums with steps to follow if you get that email, is just they don't acknowledge is a bug on their system. Oh, of course, if you tell them is a bug they deny it, Blizzard doesn't have bugs!

Not a big issue if you don't play any more, but not nice for heavy players who find their toons naked and without all the epix l00t they gathered in these months.

Re:Buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably failed to respond to one of their emails with your account information to verify that you didn't sell your account.

Re:Buggy

[HybridJeff]

I've merged WoW accounts into bnet accounts before, it does require that they know your login and password. They cant do it with just your email and account name.

Re:Buggy

[ildon]

It requires they have your password. You friends were either paying for power leveling services at some point or on bought accounts, and the original owner (or a previous seller) simply used this as an opportunity to take the account back or they simply had their passwords stolen, likely duped by a pretty obvious phishing ploy. Or maybe they got keylogged. The point is, their account would have been stolen with or without the battle.net account system, because your friends/guidmates are dumb (or at least bad at the internet).

Re:Buggy

[jpmorgan]

Nobody "stole" my password. I haven't used that account, or password, in the two years since I stopped playing. It's a little hard to get caught by a keylogger/phishing scheme when you haven't entered the account info anywhere in years.

BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances?

[mrbene]

There's word of cross-server instances. I expect the functionality to support these features is baked into the newer authentication system.

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances?

[Anonymous Coward]

The mentioned cross-server LFG tool looks interesting, but I'm just wondering if it will make people act even worse in instances than before because there would be no worry about bad reputation with people not on the same realm.

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances?

[petrus4]

The mentioned cross-server LFG tool looks interesting, but I'm just wondering if it will make people act even worse in instances than before because there would be no worry about bad reputation with people not on the same realm.

Agreed. Add to that, that instability for the instance servers is often bad enough as it is.

It's one of the bad ideas that Chilton/Ghostcrawler have been able to implement, now that WoW is essentially their own feifdom which is more or less entirely seperate from Blizzard's upper management.

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances?

[drjuggler]

It's something that should have been set up long ago. If I'm playing an online FPS I can always play with people I know IRL. The friends I have who play WoW are all on different servers; what good is Massive Multiplayer in that case?

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances?

[TheReij]

I think you'll find that it will foster greater community. Many people read the WoW forums. Eventually you'll end up seeing "Do not PUG" lists with names of bad/obnoxious/immoral players. What is going to be interesting are the looting habits that develop from one server to the other. On a horde server I play on (Blackwing Lair), it is common to roll need on EVERYTHING regardless if you actually need it. Doing so on the Alliance server I play on (Runetotem) will get you branded as a ninja (as happened to me after a return to the server after an extended stay on the horde server). Still, I'm looking forward to cross-server LFG as it may allow toons that are being leveled to experience all of the game instead of the dash to 80 that currently comprises the leveling experience.

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances?

[Pollardito]

I'm curious why they can't just move people over themselves anyway, don't they manage both the old and new system?

Re:BattleNET + WoW = Cross-Server Instances?

[WuphonsReach]

Which is absolutely going to suck in the long-term for a social game like WoW.

People on RP servers are going to say "no thanks" to grouping with the l33t immature idiots from the other servers. Plus the internet fuckwad theory will be in FULL effect here, where you can ninja to your heart's content because you'll never see these players again. "Do not PUG" lists will be useless, because there will be thousands of names on them, instead of only needing to know a few dozen who are on your server.

Then there's the fun that grouping with people from other servers might allow for all sorts of weird cross-server interactions (moving gold, items) or just not being able to hand someone supplies mid-instance when they run out of water/food?

Homogenization of the servers... whee. Let's do away with all the uniqueness that the different servers have.

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve

[gmhowell]

You mean THEIR software that you are renting?

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve

[Trahloc]

No, we rent access to their server. The software is ours, that copy at least. If we want our software to connect to a different server that is our right. The fact that they have the ability to lock it down doesn't make it right even if its legal, for now. I don't think the Supreme Court has made a ruling on this sort of thing just yet.

Create real-life friends lists?

[x-cubed]

Since when did WoW players have real-life friends?

Re:Create real-life friends lists?

[Norsefire]

Since when did WoW players have real-life friends?

Says the guy posting on Slashd-

Oh, nevermind.

Legal?

[Jane Q. Public]

The legality of this requirement with less than 30 days notice is questionable. It might be a positive thing, and it might be beneficial to all, but changes in terms are, in fact, required by law to have a "reasonable" lead time. And I don't know of any case that has been appealed, for which the courts have decided that less than 30 days was "reasonable".

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, well the notice went up on October 12th with the change to be made on November 11th latest. That is ummmm 30 days?

Re:Legal?

[Zironic]

The change was announced about half a year ago and the deadline was announced 31 days ahead so I have no idea what you're on about.

Re:Legal?

[magamiako1]

For what it's worth, if you played WoW everyone was already told this day was coming. Way back when Wrath of the Lich King came out, people were told that we would eventually be forced to move to Battle.net logins. If you hadn't moved over by now, that's your dumb fault.

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

So says the wanna-be Lawyer looking for an excuse to sue someone.

Re:Legal?

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, the notice that was linked to was on 2009-10-12, which makes it less than 30 days. If there was prior notice, why not bring it up to OP?

Re:Legal?

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, the notice that was linked to by OP was on 2009-10-12, which makes it less than 30 days. If there was prior notice, why not bring it up to OP?

Re:Legal?

[Zironic]

October has 31 days.

Re:Legal?

[rogerdr]

I've heard rumors that a similar notice is waiting at the offices in Alpha Centauri, but I haven't been out that way yet.

Re:Legal?

[Jane Q. Public]

Okay, if you want to nitpick that much then it would become effective on the 11th, at 7 pm. I doubt that is what they actually did. What would you like to bet they made the change at midnight that morning? That still isn't legal notice.

Re:Legal? - Depends where you are

[Mistakill]

Dont forget there are requirements that such changes are 'legal' not just in the USA, but subject to laws in Australia, New Zealand, as well, at least for the US version... then there is the can of worms that is the EU (not being judgemental, but alot of the laws the EU have tend to look down upon a company changing the rules on their customers). As to anyone who says 'oh but your EULA/TOS is binding in the USA, even if youre from country X, ill say this: Im an ex WoW player, and im glad ive given up WoWCrack and im not a lawyer... but when a company like Blizzard, sells (yes i said sell, they SELL the game) the transaction is local in my country, and here, neither party is allowed contract out of your legal rights... infact Blizzard has already made reference to said laws a couple of times ;)

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve

[Anonymous Coward]

Google EULA

Makes sharing Accounts problematic

[Hutz]

This is one of their points, although they do mention that it is still within their TOS to share with your child. I have 2 children, and I manage their accounts. So now they log in with My email address -- happily, I have 2 email addresses as that's what is required now.

I'm sure every 12-year-old in America (or the world) has his own credit card and pays the bill each month. No? Why should the bill payer get the billing notices? Much better to let the minors manage the accounts.

Re:Makes sharing Accounts problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

you know what it means: time to get your 12-year-old kids come credit cards!

Re:Makes sharing Accounts problematic

[Nqdiddles]

I have 3 WoW accounts on my battlenet login (2 friends who quit the game), and I can be online with all three at the same time, with the same login - you have a drop-down box to select which account to log into. So you don't necessarily need 3 email addresses - the only issue I see is that when they log onto their accounts they'll use your login (email), and password. Yes, that's an issue, but you seem to have solved that by using 2 email addresses (presumably 2 bnet accounts). Not sure where the credit card issue comes into it... subscription to each account hasn't changed.

Re:Makes sharing Accounts problematic

[ildon]

Huh? You can have multiple accounts linked to one e-mail address. There's a UI element to select which account to play after logging in. Or is this the case that you don't want to allow the children access to your account?

Re:Makes sharing Accounts problematic

[atchijov]

Can you login to more then one of these accounts at the same time? My understanding that the answer is NO.

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve

[Anonymous Coward]

Google unenforceable, unconscionable, consideration

Just wondering....

[HazMat 79]

since I am not into MMOs, but how is this different than Xbox live? I assume maybe the fact is you can't play without being online but I am talking about the friends lists and cross game chat mostly. Live and from my understanding Steam already does this. Aren't they just catching up?

Still better than Square-Enix

[Anonymous Coward]

They started to require "Verified" credit cards, or whatever the hell it's called, a few months ago.

My bank doesn't support that. So I just can't play FF XI anymore, period. Way to go dumbasses, you just lost a customer.

So I say fuck them and their upcoming new FF-online game. I'm fucking tired of monthly fees everywhere anyway.

Re:Still better than Square-Enix

[lbbros]

The verification was required due to increase in compromised accounts and the associated credit card chargebacks by compromised users. Also, it's not mandatory for EU accounts and you can request an exemption via the customer service. Lastly. if you haven't changed credit card data prior to the introduction of verified cards, it's not required.

Re:Still better than Square-Enix

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Canada, and it's mandatory. Also, credit card payments had stopped (maxed out) so I can't re-activate my account again.

Fuck Square-Enix.

This will change everything!!!!!

[Groggnrath]

I've had my account merged since the option became available. The number of differences is near nil for the end user.

I am however astounded at the amount of FUD and fear mongering taking place over what amounts to 5 minutes worth of an inconvenience. The Internet breeds people who alternately love and fear change in all forms.

Re:This will change everything!!!!!

[roachdabug]

I merged my account as soon as I could to take advantage of the authenticator app for the iphone. The first week or so there were some connection issues once in a while, but they worked the kinks out and it's been smooth as butter for many months.

The only difference now is that your login is your full email address instead of an arbitrary user name.

Misconceptions....

[cigawoot]

There are a few myths stated in the comments I wish to clear up:

1) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.
2) As far as I know, unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends, they won't be able to see you play Starcraft 2.
3) If you get banned from World of Warcraft, it will NOT ban your from other games, including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account.
4) Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in /2 and you won't get banned.
5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account. You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login. If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).
6) Alarmists ARE indeed funny to read.

Re:Misconceptions....

[davaguco]

I can't log into the account management section of their website with my battle.net username, now. It seems the battle.net server login servers are now. I hope this never happens with the game login.

Re:Misconceptions....

[cigawoot]

Maybe because its Tuesday? I think they brought down the Battle.net authentication servers for maintenance.

Re:Misconceptions....

[Anonymous Coward]

And here are your misconceptions that I wish to clear up:

1. completely subjective, and how exactly does logging in need to be made easier? it's currently hard?
2. afaik = I don't know
3. fair enough
4. subjective
5. fair enough
6. naive people are even funnier

Re:Misconceptions....

[atchijov]

All true except number 5. As of now, you can not login into 2 different WoW accounts via same Battle.net account at the same time. When you trying to add second WoW account to your Battle.net account, you will get warning to this effect. They do mention that this limitation will be lifted in the future.

Re:Misconceptions....

[cigawoot]

1) Lets say I have 3 or 4 WoW accounts, a single login is easier then ahving to manage 4 logins.
4) I've NEVER heard of anyone getting banned (except for the WINE incident, which was later fixed) for something they did not do. Getting banned because your brother put "leet hax" on your system does not count. Don't do stupid shit (sharing your account, buying/selling gold, powerleveling, being retarded in /2, using cheats) and you won't get banned. Pretty simple.
6) Weak argument is weak.

Re:Misconceptions....

[cigawoot]

Ah, I stand corrected on that point. If its just a technical issue, they should be able to correct that before Battle.net 2.0's official rollout.

Re:Misconceptions....

[Domini]

7) The free iPhone public/private key dongle app is cool too.

I run my D2, WoW and SC games off Battle.net. Works well... the authentication server has also less downtime than the vanilla WoW one...touch wood.

Re:Misconceptions....

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this:
1. It is exactly equally hard. In the future, it will mean one less login to remember if you purches SC2 or Diablo3 or WC4 or whatever the hell else comes out. Pre-emptive reduced future difficulty can be seen as "easier".
2. I do know. For a fact.
3. n/a
4. I fail to see how it's "subjective" to state that "not doing things that will get you banned will help you not get banned".
5. n/a
6. Yes, all those naive people who don't think the world trade center was destroyed by a zionist conspiracy are so funny. Oh wait.

Re:Misconceptions....

[Snaller]

"Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier."

For people hacking your accounts.

"As far as I know, unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends, they won't be able to see you play Starcraft 2."

And if you don't put him on he'll kick you from the guild.

"If you get banned from World of Warcraft, it will NOT ban your from other games, including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account."

Which is a lie, they already do that on the forums.

"Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in /2 and you won't get banned."

False. They can and have banned you if they don't like what you say - it doesn't matter what you actually say. You can even get a ban for stupid stuff like posting to a thread which "is too old"

"You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account."

And you can make more battlenet accounts to keep it separated and keep hacking risks down.

Re:Misconceptions....

[ildon]

Uh, no. I've done it. It works fine.

Re:Misconceptions....

[PhilHibbs]

5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account. You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login. If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).

Confirmed, this is what I do.

Re:Misconceptions....

[BobMcD]

4) Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in /2 and you won't get banned.

On the one hand, this oversimplifies the situation. On the other, it hasn't really changed. So the point is moot, even if you're technically incorrect. More below...

5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.

But since the cost of a new battlenet account is an email address, why the hell would you dream of doing that?

In fact, none of my household's battlenet accounts (we have three) have actual email accounts behind them. They all point to false addresses at my google domain which all trickle down to my actual email address. This is going to be the case for every account I open with them to avoid potential complications with number 4.

That being said, lets look at some of the ways I might imagine incurring a loss under number 4 above:

A) I'm destroying the third map on the Terran Campaign while my son is jumping off of Dalaran on my main. Same person can't be on two games (actively) at once, so out comes the ban hammer.

B) I decide to sell/gift/transfer my account. This is actually what happened to both my SC1 and Diablo2 keys. I wouldn't necessarily want that to give that person access to my WoW accounts at the same time. And what about when WoW2 comes out? Likely, I'll still have characters under my name with WoW1. I did in EQ when EQ2 happened, for example. Hell I probably have a hundred total characters spread across multiple accounts. Not that they're worth anything, per se, but I see them as mine to transfer as I see fit. And you never know when someone might ask you for them, as was the case with Diablo2.

C) I frequently say 'stupid shit' in /2 because I can't let moronic comments go untouched. Its a personality flaw. I'm on a crusade against stupidity and that pretty much puts me at odds with people from time to time.

D) What if I (shudder) buy gold? Would I do that on an alt account that I don't really care about, or on my main? If they were all tied together, would it matter?

Again, all I need do to re-gain this tiny amount of freedom that I would have had before this change is dummy-up some additional email addresses. Which I do all the time anyway.

The unfortunate part is, not everyone knows how easy this is to do. Or to put it in Blizzard terms, 'cha-ching'.

Re:Misconceptions....

[cigawoot]

"False. They can and have banned you if they don't like what you say - it doesn't matter what you actually say. You can even get a ban for stupid stuff like posting to a thread which 'is too old'"

You are confusing a forum ban with an account ban. You can be banned from the forums without being banned ingame. However, a game ban is also a forum ban.

Re:Misconceptions....

[cigawoot]

"And if you don't put him on he'll kick you from the guild." If I was in a guild that would gkick a member because I refused to put him on my Battle.net friends list, I would be evaluating if I really wanted to be in that guild.

Re:Misconceptions....

[Anonymous Coward]

So all I have to do is crack your single battle.net login and I have access to all your WoW accounts? Hey, you are correct that is easier! Thanks, Blizzard!

Re:Misconceptions....

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.

I agree with most of your points, I really wish they wouldn't use email addresses for battle.net logins though. Usernames are so much better and easier to type too. I hope they allow you to choose an optional username at least in the future.

Re:Misconceptions....

[cigawoot]

By saying "stupid shit" in /2, I'm refering to the use of profanity, making racist jokes, or other behavior that violates the ToS. When you respond to people trolling in /2, if you respond to the trolling then you are just as guilty. If people are being stupid in trade chat, and its against the ToS, report it to a GM.
Basically only say and do ingame what you would do in a room full of strangers IRL, and you are okay.

Re:Misconceptions....

[space_jake]

Blizzard Authenticator makes getting hacked nearly impossible. You can't transfer characters between accounts unless they're under the same battle.net account. If your guild leader kicks you for not adding them to your friends list they did you a favor. I've never seen anyone get banned for being a douche in public channels, I've seen the same people being douches for years and I know I report them daily. I've seen people get banned from the forums for such but they only got banned from the forums not the game.

Re:Misconceptions....

[geekoid]

1) I don't like being treated like I'm a thief.

2) Not ahving you guild leader on battle net friends will cost you either in scheduling, or dkp.

3) Yes, it will.

4) I think you mean don't let anyone say you are botting, cheating or scamming. It's not like you get to defend yourself.

5) Separate issue.

6) Yes they are, just like apologists.

Re:Misconceptions....

[cigawoot]

1) What?
2) If I was in a guild that required that you put the GM on your B.net friends, I would evalute my membership in that guild.
3) Blizzard said explicitly that it does not.
4) Blizzard doesn't accept a player's evidence that another player is cheating. They have their own methods which they really don't want to reveal (for obvious reasons)
5) No it isn't, it involves the usability of Battle.net accounts.
6) What?

Re:Misconceptions....

[Meski]

Basically only say and do ingame what you would do in a room full of strangers IRL, and you are okay.

Shudder. You're quite sure about that? What about a room full of really intoxicated strangers?

And on a serious note

[awjr]

The merge itself is good imho, however there is a major problem with Parental Controls. The old login server used to terminate your connection when you hit a 'no play' time. Now it leaves you logged in. If you try and login in during 'no play' time then it stops you which is fine.

This is a major issue for somebody that enjoys the game, wants their child to enjoy the game, but doesn't want that child ruining their education. I know how addictive WoW can be.

Have raised it with Blizzard, but they haven't responded as yet. This needs fixing. Yes I want to instil a sense of responsibility in my child, but sometimes a machine just saying no, is very difficult to argue with.

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve

[Gorm the DBA]

"Google unenforceable, unconscionable, consideration"
Google "Has been enforced frequently", "Copyright Law says they don't even have to let you have it at all if they don't want to", and "In exchange for being allowed a license to install the game and access their servers".
No Court is ever going to turn down a game writer's ability to police their game. Yes, if there was a EULA term that says "You agree to give us your first born child and all your base", a Court might turn that away, however, a EULA that says "If you want to play this game, you must play it by our rules, if you don't like it, you should return the software immediately for a refund" has never been defeated in a court of law.

Free for now...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but how long until they start requiring pay-per-play.

1) Sell game to gullible gamers.

2) Get them addicted to the game.

3) After a while, make them pay additional fees to get to use what they already bought.

4) ???

5) Profit!

Re:Free for now...

[atchijov]

FYI: WOW is subscription based. You pay monthly fee to keep playing. Next time please check your facts before you post.

Smells like a setup.

[H0NGK0NGPH00EY]

So, am I still supposed to believe that Blizzard won't charge a monthly fee to play Starcraft II online? On the same exact network, with basically the same set of services as millions of monthly-fee WoW-ers?

Re:Smells like a setup.

[PhilHibbs]

So, am I still supposed to believe that Blizzard won't charge a monthly fee to play Starcraft II online? On the same exact network, with basically the same set of services as millions of monthly-fee WoW-ers?

Starcraft II isn't a persistent world that requires the active involvement of GMs, so they don't have that overhead. It's much more like the matchmaking service that Battle.net was originally, with the hard work being done on your client PC, not a huge server farm.

Re:Smells like a setup.

[Skuld-Chan]

Are you kidding? The server requirements for running a persistent online world are far greater than the server requirements for running a match making system - which is essentially what SC2 online play is.

Kinda like MUDs 15 years ago then?

[Domini]

I remember the addition of the inter-mud libs that players could to inter-mud tells and inter-mud mail to one another. Never really got used much tho as far as I recall.

Well

[Snaller]

It is in the TOS you "agreed" to when you installed Lich King (that one day a battlenet account would be required to play) - so there is presumably not much which can be done about it legally.

Re:Well

[Jane Q. Public]

The law, at least in most states of the US, limits what companies can do in the way of changes in contract. Companies can claim all they want in their TOS, that does not automatically make it legal.

It worked for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I havent bought a single valve game since steam came out.... And i was really looking forward to some of them.

Rockstar jumped on the wagon & i stopped buying their games too. Keep it up guys and all I'll have left is Bethesda & the Indies.

I am saving a small fortune now that my game buying habits have been almost completely eliminated.

Re:It worked for me

[Hadlock]

Err, you're aware that Bethesda == iD now, right? And most (all?) of Bethesda's titles are on Steam... I only buy about 3 games a year myself. I have yet to spend > $35 on any one game. TF2 was $20, L4D in a 4 pack is only $33 and change and then most of my other games were gifted for some reason or another.

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve

[Lulfas]

You bought the game with the complete foreknowledge that you had to pay per month and play on Blizzard's servers. It even says it on the box. Acting like it's some magical new thing just makes you look like a douchebag.

Password not required

[TheReij]

The only thing a person needs to know to merge an account to Battle.net is the account name. You don't have to know the password.

Re:Password not required

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just FUD, one needs to know both the username and password to merge a WoW account onto a Battle.net account. If you don't believe me, then try it yourself: https://us.battle.net/account/

Additionally, the parent poster is in denial, *somehow* his account was compromised. Online compromised account problems are not exclusive to WoW, many other online services, including banking have the same problem, I can't guess how his account was compromised, common ways though are:
- Account sharing with a "friend"
- Someone works out your SQ/A / CD Key (with this they can change your email address)
- Someone close to them got hold of his CD key and knew his
- Use of common username and password between services, like maybe he uses the same accountname and password on a forum? Sometimes users use the same wow account name as their MSN name, and of course the person already knows your email if you are on MSN messenger, and then they just need to go through about 5 favourite colours.
- Then the others, like phishing and trojans.

He may vehemontly deny that it could be any of these and it *must* be a fault of Blizzard, but the fact is that something he did, allowed his account to be compromised, independant of Blizzard.

Another added fact, paid character transfers require you to... pay! Based on this, although I can't be sure without more information, it was likely related to account trading and/or sharing. Yet another reason not to trade accounts, as you can never rename your owner name on the account, and nothing you can do can ever stop the original owner from randomly phoning Blizzard and reclaiming it, despite it being you having spent the last 6 months getting the best gear in the game while paying the subscription.

Obviously I can't prove that I am in fact actually very qualified on this subject, but you will see my post makes perfect sense for someone who deals with these kinds of issues every day.

Re:Password not required

[Anonymous Coward]

He may vehemontly deny that it could be any of these and it *must* be a fault of Blizzard, but the fact is that something he did, allowed his account to be compromised, independant of Blizzard.

You are making the assumption that Blizz/Battlenet didn't have a hole in their design. Your assumption is incorrect. My account was compromised last Spring. I work in secure environments for a living, and have for 30+ years (yes, I'm an old fart that still plays). I know better than to share accts./passwords. My machine is kept up to date...anti-virus, firewall, MS updates, etc. I only use strong passwords.

When I spoke w/Blizz reps on the phone, they acknowledged that there was a problem, but no details. This was similar to their in game responses where they acknowledge that they're working the problem...hopefully that has been fixed now that they're forcing everyones hand.

The simple fact is that Battlenet & Blizzard had a design flaw, and people were able to hack your account. Yes, I know that these are the common ways people get hacked, but don't assume that the developer is never at fault.

Re:Password not required

[louisadkins]

I merged mine the other day. I had to use my username, password, and my digipass before I could merge my account. (I spent more time glancing at the address bar making sure it was the correct address than I did anything else..) I find most people who complain about being hacked are wrong (or lying) about how secure their internetz are. Phishing site, keylogger, scam artist, whatever.

Re:Let's see Blizzard come after those PvPGN serve

[Vaphell]

corporations have too much power over customers already, EULAs should be made null and void - ain't going to happen though :/

Starcraft and Diablo 2 were pretty much balanced in the we-them relation. They offered matchmaking service you could access _voluntarily_ but had to agree to follow the rules. On the other hand you had the right to take your toys elsewhere and play on LAN for example. Simple deal: you want bnet, play nice - if you don't want to, gtfo.
Now battle.net is mandatory and you can't even fart without their permission. They become pimps and users are their hoes graciously allowed to pay their masters. This trend of steamization needs to stop, seriously. Convenience is nice but not at the expense of basic customer's rights (reselling, freedom of use in bounds of law).

Unfortunately they got too big, too successful, tasted the heaps of money and there is no going back, especially with Bobby Kotick sailing the boat of Activision-Blizzard.

an Invisible requirement

[Kryptic Knight]

One thing I'd say is that from a UK / EU perspective on WoW this requirement IS NOT very well known.

Most players don't read the forums, and quite a lot don't visit the http://www.wow-europe.com/ homepage (the EU equivalent of the www.worldofwarcraft.com page)

You'd expect them to have an annoucement on the wow login page - but no there's just Free-Server Transfers there.
You'd expect them to have an in-game notice - but no there's just stuff about fake/hack alpha-beta for Cata.

Come Nov 12th Blizzard are gonna have a heck of a lot of players going "WTF" "why have you locked me out" etc etc on the forums and a shed-load of phone calls.

here's hoping

[geekoid]

it fails miserably.

This is why stopped playing WoW and won't be picking up SCII.

Stupid.

[Ouka]

This pisses me off. Account compromising is already a problem in WoW, having a single login tied to all your Blizzard games just increases the opportunities for your account information to be lifted.

I already hate that the Bliz forums require your account login info in order to post, they could have had a one-off login for the forums so if your computer is infected with a keylogger or packet sniffer your game account would not be compromised.

For Steam games it's not that big a deal - the games aren't MMOs so you don't have toons that you have worked on for months or years being destroyed if you get hacked.

Single-account login is a step backwards in security, not a step forward. The Bliz exe who thought up this brain-dead idea probably uses the same login and password for his bank, credit card, phone, energy company, and email. Stupid.

Regarding 'cross-realm chat'

[sydbarrett74]

Meh. Cross-realm chat is not much of a must-have for me (if I have any friends/family who play on different servers, I can always chat them up via AIM or GTalk). Cross-realm play would be awesome and game-changing. I would love to go into LFG/LFM and have hundreds or thousands of potential players with whom to group up for an instance. It gets really old waiting for hours in LFG to run even recent instances because nobody is on my server at that moment. And high->low pop realm transfers are a poor fix which merely mask a more fundamental problem. Why can't MMO publishers ditch the whole shard/realm/server paradigm (q.v. this article)?

MCP

[rogerdr]

Welcome to the Game Grid.