Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Sued Over Battle.net Authentication
An anonymous reader writes "A man has initiated a class-action suit against Blizzard over a product used to shore up Battle.net security. Benjamin Bell alleges that Blizzard's sale of Authenticators — devices that enable basic two-tier authentication — represents deceptive and unfair additional costs to their basic games. (Blizzard sells the key fob versions for $6.50, and provides a free mobile app as an alternative. Neither are mandatory.) The complaint accuses Blizzard of making $26 million in Authenticator sales. In response, Blizzard made a statement refuting some of the complaint's claims and voicing their intention to 'vigorously defend' themselves."
They don't even have case sensitivity on their passwords. Compromised accounts drive additional sales, including the fobs.
Not only does the $6.50 help cover postage and pay for the dongle, its completely optional and Blizzard makes the app available to as many platforms as they can. You can even install the authenticator on a Android simulator on a computer.
I'm in shock as to how entitled this person is. I honestly just can't fathom how he can claim that Blizzard "makes money" off these authenticators.
Question #1 will be : "Did blizzard make you buy one in order to play the game, and are there any consequences to not doing so?"... "No, and No"...."Case dismissed"
Like TFS says, the mobile version is free. Just another moron trying to make a quick buck.
My concern with blizzard's authenticator is that they seem to have rolled their own implementation rather than adhering to an open, defined spec (HOTP/TOTP). And like so many of these services, there's no good way to move it to a new device without disabling 2FA temporarily. People do upgrade their phones, after all.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
If they win this suit, I'm going after Google to pay my phone bills since they give me the option of using SMS based authentication to protect my Gmail account.
He seems to be an idiot to me. The authenticators were created to protect a community that is targeted regularly from their own stupidity. Basically, it's to protect from phishing and keylogging. Blizzard is just offering them an additional method to secure them, for a negligible cost. As for the issue with the hack on their servers, they made sure to alert their users via their registered accounts. Any legal requirements, anything else in regards to their quality of security... I can't speak for.
It's not mandatory, and it's a game. A service provided to you, and a limited version that's free to use. The security problem is inherent to all MMOs -- and Blizzard is providing a way for people concerned with hacking to protect their investment in the game, at a reasonable rate. These authenticator tokens often cost a lot more than the cost of a meal at mcdonald's in other industries. The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. He max-leveled in idiot.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It is made by Vasco and is sold in large quantity orders for around 6.50$, which is the same as what Blizzard charges for it. The idiot in question is basicly claiming Blizzard sold 400,000 Authenticators at a 100% profit margin.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
This is good, as if you log in to Battle.net from another computer, you need to reset your password. That's completely stupid and practically forces you to get some form of authenticator, if you don't want to jump through hoops every time you switch computer.
Warcraft should be free, and Blizzard should become a charity.
A friend of mine got hacked three times. Blizzard sent him an authenticator for free. It costs them less to send the free authenticator that keep fixing his account.
This is just someone trying to make money on a frivolous law suit.
'vigorously defend' themselves.
Sounds like a Terran turtle.
...if you don't already own a smartphone that can run their app.
The end of the article indicates he is suing to not require a battle.net account just to play a game, which seems reasonable to me.
Instead of taking personal responsibility for the security of their own account, they instead sue Blizzard. Blizzard CANNOT control the end user's computer (not as much as they wish they could, at least). Therefore, the security of your login credentials are the sole responsibility of the account holder. Blizzard can't keep your computer from getting infected with malware, falling for a phishing scam, or sharing your credentials with your little brother.
Not true, you can run it in an Android development emulator.
2) Include a "Free Authenticator!" in every box, or mail one to people who opt to download the client.
3) Profit.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Suing over $6.50.... even with a complete victory he would probably end up with something like $.50 after the lawyers get their part. This must be somebody with too much time to waste.
How big is that to download (especially on a capped plan), and how much RAM does it use (in addition to the RAM your game uses)?
The key fob is required to use the RMAH in Diablo 3.
No, it does not tell you this on the physical boxed copy. You think you are getting something when in fact an additional purchase is required.
Also one called WinAuth, no emulator needed. http://code.google.com/p/winauth/
"When I buy a car the dealer doesn't tell me that I have to buy a car alarm with it at extra cost."
You've not bought a car from a dealer lot recently, have you?
Expect to find LoJack (even in markets where the local police have bought zero units), alarms, windshield VIN etching, clear paint protectors, sealants, rust proofing, teflon upholstery protection and a wide variety of exciting floor mats pre installed and added on to the price of every actually available car, taking them way above and beyond the "Starting From..." low, low advertized MSRP on the banners around the lot. Listen to the radio commercials where whichever "mile of cars" with "over X thousand vehicles to choose from!" has "three at this price."
The difference between Blizzard and a car lot is, if Blizzard were a car lot, they'd be telling you, "We're sorry, the only copies we've got on hand today already have their accounts hooked to a validator and we can't remove it. We could order you a copy without a validator in 8-12 weeks or you can pay the premium to take a copy home today."
No, gross income is not revenue. It is revenue - cost of goods sold
" (in addition to the RAM your game uses)?"
Who cares? it's not like you have to leave the authenticator running while you are playing
But you still have to have both the game and the Android simulator open while you're running the authenticator to get the code to type into the game. The only way I can see otherwise is if one would start the Android simulator, run the authenticator, close the Android simulator, and then start the game. This is possible only if the authenticator needs no information from the game and the game tolerates a delay of up to a few minutes between running the authenticator and running the game. Is this the case? I can't try it myself because the last Blizzard product I bought was the first StarCraft.
I support it simply for this:
He also seeks to stop Blizzard from requiring players to sign up for a Battle.net account.
2. Periods are standard list delimiters, not parentheses.
3. He isn't 'coming on' as anything other than someone that knows what a syllogism is.
Vasco sells in bulk for 6.50
Blizzard resells for 6.50
Blizzard is reselling at no profit
QED
" Blizzard puts the onus on gamers to buy additional products or tighten security on their devices, rather than making customer accounts more secure, Bell claims."
No vendor will make changes to devices or accounts not part of their service, nor should they be required. This person is upset that he has to spend $6.50 one time, mind you the 2 factor authentication is optional, for use with all their games (World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3), and likely future games as well, to add an optional 2 factor authentication.
The user is required to provide their own ISP, router equipmenet, computer, Antivirus and related security software, and make sure they are not the source of leaked passwords by reusing weak passwords from other accounts. If this person thinks for one sec that a company regardless of the service they provide should secure (each users ISP, router equipmenet, computer, Antivirus and related security software) they got another thing coming.
With that said could Blizzard increase the security of the account, I am sure they could to a point but it still falls to the user to secure everything else.
So, the company did the right thing in terms of offering two factor authentication (I wish my bank would do that). They made it optional and made free apps available so that people aren't forced to use it. All of that is good.
This lawsuit is frivolous, and the guy should not only lose, but have to pay court and defense costs.
First off, Blizzard has not forced anyone to use an authenticator unless you wish to use the real money auction house on D3.
Second, they have a free alternatives available for your phone, so there is no financial obligation to purchase one of theirs.
Third, even if by chance blizzard did profit from the authenticators, which i doubt they do...... its their product. They have a right to make money on what they sell, its the American dream.
Fourth, no need for a 4th because the case is that simple!
Then it's a likely net revenue positive. The price of the "game" is less than the cost of production and you were intended to get that use out of it over time (even in monthly pay schemes). So they close the account and don't have to support you at all.
If you buy 10,000 of a widget you get one price. If you're buying 10,000,000 you can demand a lower price AND GET IT.
You also have the proposition like Starbucks paying their Swiss arm to grind beans in the EU. Pay vastly inflated sum and it goes back to the same parent company but now with a huge tax dedution on profit.
If, as some are saying, that the cost for the hacked account is how they can sell the authenticator for cost and want to, because it reduces the cost of support, then they can give away the device and still save the cost of support of a hacked account AND know that they won't be getting more of the same errors because some aren't buying the authenticator.
And therefore they'd still be better off.
Film at 11.
Years ago I had my own home phone service and the phone company offered to charge a monthly fee to keep my number private and out of the phone book. I didn't understand this as I considered it cheaper not to have it in the phone book in the first place because it saves space and ink. I declined the extra charge and ended up getting calls on occasion from people looking for a church. Turns out the number they gave me use to belong to a church and the advertisement for it was still in the new phone books.
I see some claiming that Blizzard loses money on the device than they actually sell it for. Wouldn't it be cheaper if they just implemented extra security into their websites and game clients? Why should people have to download an app or buy a doohickey to have better account security? I'm sure a lot of their players neither want to buy the device , don't want to use the app because they don't have the proper type of cell phone, just plain don't want it, or they don't even know about it. And without that they are left open to their account being hacked. The device/app may not be required but it is needed if you want your account better secured, which is something (in my opinion) that Blizzard should be doing already without forcing the players to risk their accounts.
Maybe the lawsuit is about Blizzard charging people, and profiting (if true), to have better account security when Blizzard should be required to secure your info better in the first place. Isn't there a law about that forcing companies to better secure their user's data?
Imagine the outrage if banks started charging people a fee or or ask them to use an app to keep their bank account numbers and credit card info from being made public online.
What. An. Idiot.
Hello!! Fashion,low price,the good shopping places, Cheap wholesale and retail Gucci/Shoes , ( Discount UGG/Boots ) LV Shoes , DG Shoes , BURBERRY Shoes , LACOSTE Shoes , Women Boots , handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g/Gucci) , Sunglasses(Oakey,coach/Gucci,Armaini) , free shipping and quantity discount, Accept credit card and PAYPAL ==== http://www.cbssbase.com/ ==== ==== http://www.cbssbase.com/ ====