Well, I appreciate the occasional foray into games articles.
Rather than asking for the games section to be dumped, why not just set your preferences to not show Games articles? That way you can have what you want, without the rest of us having to see your griping.
"This sounds silly, but the traditional way to "sell out" of an item is to lower it's price.
That's the traditional way to sell out an overstock. The 360 won't be overstocked, it will be intentionally understocked.
"Keeping the price high by artificial fixed prices means that it's hard to 'sell out'."
They aren't keeping the price high by artificially fixed prices. They are keeping the ideal pricing point high by limiting supply.
MS needs to justify the high MSRP for the 360... and the high wholesale price. MS doesn't want to reduce the price until late next year. The best way to do that is by showing that there is enough demand that you still sell out at the current price.
Producers of a unique commodity often limit supply to keep demand and price (by extension) high. My understanding is that MS will be taking a loss on each unit anyway... so if they have to drop the price in the short-term, they'll be hemorrhaging instead of slowly leaking.
This isn't artificial price-fixing. This is manipulation of the market by restricting supply. It's done all the time with unique goods, and preserves the profit incentive to continue producing innovative goods.
When someone with mob ties has a crappy business that seems to lose a lot of money, or makes a substandard product with unexplained sales, what do the feds normally think?
"An extra dialog popping up saying that this update will install spyware that works in such and such a way, collecting such and such information for these particular purposes would have prevented the appearance of shady behavior."
I agree.
However, Blizzard doesn't need to avoid the appearance of shady behaviour as long as there is still strong demand for their product.
All they need to do is avoid civil and cirminal liability. Most corporations will always do the minimum required by law.
Regardless of the debatable legality of click-through EULAs, no one should claim that they weren't told about possible software being installed on their computer, when they clearly were.
Maybe the games you want to play are complex enough that they simply can't run as "just an application." After all, we are talking about online games, which implies some kind of communication.
People spend thousands of dollars on a computer, and then don't make the tiny effort to read what they are signing? Honestly, the need to make up excuses for people who are too lazy to maintain their own property amazes me.
If you read through the comments on this thread, you'll understand why people are happy that the Warden is installed. You'll also understand why the Warden isn't really spyware.
"Except for noting the time that someone spends fishing (which may or may not be a good indicator of cheating), there was no way to detect this "cheating" server side."
Toss in random events that break the cycle and require human input, like Runescape had to do. Botting became much less effective once they did -- if you die & lose inventory every time you run a bot for 5 or 10 minutes, the problem kinda goes away. Of course, one person could monitor several bots (which IIRC happened all the time) operating different scripts, but there are ways to limit that as well.
Plent of contracts have appendices. The EULA doesn't specifically mention the software, but it is allowed according to the general terms. Doesn't the EULA stipulate that you have read and agree to the TOS, anyway?
Why is it so hard for people to make a little effort? The need for instant gratification amazes me.
That's where server-side monitoring gets er done. Statistical analysis and action logs would identify that pretty easily. Or random events that make the script useless.
"...people will find a way around it. They will NEVER make any media copy-proof. It has been cracked again and again and again. I am not worried."
Sure, the technologically savvy will have access... the *AA are fine with a few people having access. It's mainstream access that they want to prevent. (Joe Sixpack must not be allowed to easily destroy their revenue stream.)
That's what this is really about -- no off-the-shelf way for people to bypass the profit stream.
Yep -- paying people to farm changes the economy, but doesn't necessarily break it. Scripting would allow basically infinite inflation. Although, scripts would have to be pretty darn complex to not be caught by statistical analysis.
Interesting what Runescape did -- random events limit scripters pretty well. They call them a gameplay feature, but really they're an anti-scripting security feature.
"Perhaps yes, but with the multitude of people playing and the varying playstyles makes ruling out cheaters from a server perspective inadequate, impossible and unfeasable. Most all decisions in game are made or at least adjudicated through the server."
I happen to disagree. Inadequacy would depend on the extent to which the monitoring is done. Statistical analysis + human observers might cost some cash, but would IMO be adequate. Impossible? I don't think so. Blizzard has a ton of resources at their disposal. Unfeasable? You mean you think it would cost too much for Blizzard? Or hamper gameplay too much? If Blizzard loses more business through client-side monitoring than they would spend on server-side monitoring, then they'll do server-side monitoring.
"The bits that the warden appears to be combatting are things which monitor for elements of the game in memory. Remember ShowEQ from about 5 years ago? It would scan the memory and show you every NPC or PC in the zone you were currently in. This was a huge boon for gamers who were targeting specific toons/characters."
The end result of which would be statistical anomalies that are relatively easy to detect. Have an observation team "follow" anomalous characters for a while, take action based on observations.
"One must also take a look at the extensive interface modifications available for the game, there is the potential that an inept user could incidently install something malicious from an interface package ("Oh, it's a self-extracting executable, nothing bad could ever come in one of these...") which could steal account information.""
That's a red herring. Any executables a user installs from anyone other than Blizzard has nothing to do with Blizzard's EULA, or whether Blizzard does server- or client-side monitoring. Anyone who installs a third-party interface is asking for their account info to be stolen.
"That's great! I was under the impression, though, that the EULA was in the installer, and that software vendors generally don't accept returns on opened software. Am I wrong about that?"
I read the EULA before opening the box. I do that with all my software purchases, they are normally available online. Kind of a PITA, since I had to go through the hassle of returning it, but that's what I get for not reading the EULA before I made the purchase.
"Where does "I don't accept the EULA" leave someone who purchased the software before the patch was released and expected to play online? Does this break their $50 investment? Can they play without patching their software?"
The initial EULA grants Blizzard the right to change the EULA at any time, without conditions.
Yes, it does leave the user out $50 if they don't agree to the new EULA but want to play online... but then again, they accepted that risk when they signed the original EULA.
"The 'didn't read the EULA; tough luck' argument doesn't sit right with me. When Gator (or whatever it was called) got installed with certain P2P apps, and was specifically mentioned in the EULA, people were upset. In this case, (many / most?) people aren't. You can't have it both ways."
I don't want it both ways. I sincerely believe that if you don't agree to the terms of the EULA, don't sign it. If you don't understand the terms of the EULA, then don't sign it. If you don't understand the implications of the terms of the EULA, then don't sign it.
There are quite a few pieces of software I would have installed, except I felt the EULA was overreaching, and would leave me vulnerable, and I did not trust the source. I returned WoW without installing it for this very reason. There is other software that I installed, despite my misgivings about the EULA, because I fully trusted the source.
In its entirety. A quick read. Easy to copy and paste into a word processor for your records. Easy to see if it has changed. If they ask you to agree to the EULA again, open up a new browser window if a bunch of little screens is a pain.
The problem is not with the EULA, in this case. The problem is that people do not understand that they are entering into a legal contract, and how serious the implications are. At my business, I go over contracts with a fine-tooth comb. Why would I do any less at home?
One problem I have with the EULA is that you do not have to certify that you are the owner of the computer, or that you are authorized to make decisions on behalf of the owner. Once this happens (and it will, should this go far in the courts in the US) then WoW will lose business if they want to implement a EULA allowing something like this. The answer? Don't have terms in the license that require the consent of the owner of the computer. Do "Warden-like" activities server-side.
What's the major change to the EULA? I just checked the current EULA, looks pretty standard to me, I can't see any big difference from the original EULA (haven't been able to find a copy online, but I know I read it a couple weeks ago -- someone on a blog somewhere had it up).
"And that's exactly how the majority of spyware out there gets installed. Is it OK for Blizzard, but not OK for a P2P or web utility company to do?"
It's OK for anyone to do it, if they get your permission. The question is whether the permission is valid, i.e., has the signatory party "read and understood" the terms of the agreement? Is the knowledge base sufficient for the person signing away their protection to really understand what rights they are granting?
As consumers become more versed in spyware, and how it is installed, vendors will need to start making their EULAs plain-speech. Or need to not include such clauses in the EULA. As a (normally) savvy consumer, such a clause in a EULA is a make-or-break condition when I purchase/install software.
"There are already some big problems with ebay gold farmers.. I'd rather they had to sit at the computer to make their gold, rather than just running a script."
You mean, you'd rather have had them pay a pittance to a room full of workers than just running a script.
"Now, if this thing told you up front that it was doing all of this...
Therefore, it is spying on you actions without your knowledge. Software + spying = spyware."
For it to be spying, it would need to be dialing home with your info info. Which it doesn't. Furthermore, it is not without your knowledge... or it shouldn't be, if you read and understood the EULA, which you indicated that you had when you installed the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I appreciate the occasional foray into games articles.
Rather than asking for the games section to be dumped, why not just set your preferences to not show Games articles? That way you can have what you want, without the rest of us having to see your griping.
"This sounds silly, but the traditional way to "sell out" of an item is to lower it's price.
That's the traditional way to sell out an overstock. The 360 won't be overstocked, it will be intentionally understocked.
"Keeping the price high by artificial fixed prices means that it's hard to 'sell out'."
They aren't keeping the price high by artificially fixed prices. They are keeping the ideal pricing point high by limiting supply.
MS needs to justify the high MSRP for the 360... and the high wholesale price. MS doesn't want to reduce the price until late next year. The best way to do that is by showing that there is enough demand that you still sell out at the current price.
Producers of a unique commodity often limit supply to keep demand and price (by extension) high. My understanding is that MS will be taking a loss on each unit anyway... so if they have to drop the price in the short-term, they'll be hemorrhaging instead of slowly leaking.
This isn't artificial price-fixing. This is manipulation of the market by restricting supply. It's done all the time with unique goods, and preserves the profit incentive to continue producing innovative goods.
Not enough coffee today...
Dammit, got my crapware confused.
Thanks for correcting me!
So, /. previously covered Roberts's mob ties.
When someone with mob ties has a crappy business that seems to lose a lot of money, or makes a substandard product with unexplained sales, what do the feds normally think?
Money laundering.
I know it's what I'm thinking.
"An extra dialog popping up saying that this update will install spyware that works in such and such a way, collecting such and such information for these particular purposes would have prevented the appearance of shady behavior."
I agree.
However, Blizzard doesn't need to avoid the appearance of shady behaviour as long as there is still strong demand for their product.
All they need to do is avoid civil and cirminal liability. Most corporations will always do the minimum required by law.
A sibling of mine had a convertible diesel VW Rabbit. Not sure if that's the lifestyle the OP is looking for, though.
Regardless of the debatable legality of click-through EULAs, no one should claim that they weren't told about possible software being installed on their computer, when they clearly were.
There's no need to make excuses for anyone.
Maybe the games you want to play are complex enough that they simply can't run as "just an application." After all, we are talking about online games, which implies some kind of communication.
People spend thousands of dollars on a computer, and then don't make the tiny effort to read what they are signing? Honestly, the need to make up excuses for people who are too lazy to maintain their own property amazes me.
If you read through the comments on this thread, you'll understand why people are happy that the Warden is installed. You'll also understand why the Warden isn't really spyware.
Well, then, no complaints about the Warden, eh?
I think this bill was supposed to be introduced on 4/1/05. They screwed up their holidays again.
That's the only rationale I can come up with, especially after reading the points you made.
"Except for noting the time that someone spends fishing (which may or may not be a good indicator of cheating), there was no way to detect this "cheating" server side."
Toss in random events that break the cycle and require human input, like Runescape had to do. Botting became much less effective once they did -- if you die & lose inventory every time you run a bot for 5 or 10 minutes, the problem kinda goes away. Of course, one person could monitor several bots (which IIRC happened all the time) operating different scripts, but there are ways to limit that as well.
Plent of contracts have appendices. The EULA doesn't specifically mention the software, but it is allowed according to the general terms. Doesn't the EULA stipulate that you have read and agree to the TOS, anyway?
Why is it so hard for people to make a little effort? The need for instant gratification amazes me.
That's where server-side monitoring gets er done. Statistical analysis and action logs would identify that pretty easily. Or random events that make the script useless.
"...people will find a way around it. They will NEVER make any media copy-proof. It has been cracked again and again and again. I am not worried."
Sure, the technologically savvy will have access... the *AA are fine with a few people having access. It's mainstream access that they want to prevent. (Joe Sixpack must not be allowed to easily destroy their revenue stream.)
That's what this is really about -- no off-the-shelf way for people to bypass the profit stream.
Good points. The question is, how much do you trust Blizzard to not take advantage, and to not inadvertently allow someone else access?
As long as they are flush with cash, I trust them... but what happens when their revenues are poor?
Yep -- paying people to farm changes the economy, but doesn't necessarily break it. Scripting would allow basically infinite inflation. Although, scripts would have to be pretty darn complex to not be caught by statistical analysis.
Interesting what Runescape did -- random events limit scripters pretty well. They call them a gameplay feature, but really they're an anti-scripting security feature.
"Perhaps yes, but with the multitude of people playing and the varying playstyles makes ruling out cheaters from a server perspective inadequate, impossible and unfeasable. Most all decisions in game are made or at least adjudicated through the server."
I happen to disagree. Inadequacy would depend on the extent to which the monitoring is done. Statistical analysis + human observers might cost some cash, but would IMO be adequate.
Impossible? I don't think so. Blizzard has a ton of resources at their disposal.
Unfeasable? You mean you think it would cost too much for Blizzard? Or hamper gameplay too much? If Blizzard loses more business through client-side monitoring than they would spend on server-side monitoring, then they'll do server-side monitoring.
"The bits that the warden appears to be combatting are things which monitor for elements of the game in memory. Remember ShowEQ from about 5 years ago? It would scan the memory and show you every NPC or PC in the zone you were currently in. This was a huge boon for gamers who were targeting specific toons/characters."
The end result of which would be statistical anomalies that are relatively easy to detect. Have an observation team "follow" anomalous characters for a while, take action based on observations.
"One must also take a look at the extensive interface modifications available for the game, there is the potential that an inept user could incidently install something malicious from an interface package ("Oh, it's a self-extracting executable, nothing bad could ever come in one of these...") which could steal account information.""
That's a red herring. Any executables a user installs from anyone other than Blizzard has nothing to do with Blizzard's EULA, or whether Blizzard does server- or client-side monitoring. Anyone who installs a third-party interface is asking for their account info to be stolen.
"That's great! I was under the impression, though, that the EULA was in the installer, and that software vendors generally don't accept returns on opened software. Am I wrong about that?"
I read the EULA before opening the box. I do that with all my software purchases, they are normally available online. Kind of a PITA, since I had to go through the hassle of returning it, but that's what I get for not reading the EULA before I made the purchase.
"Where does "I don't accept the EULA" leave someone who purchased the software before the patch was released and expected to play online? Does this break their $50 investment? Can they play without patching their software?"
The initial EULA grants Blizzard the right to change the EULA at any time, without conditions.
Yes, it does leave the user out $50 if they don't agree to the new EULA but want to play online... but then again, they accepted that risk when they signed the original EULA.
"The 'didn't read the EULA; tough luck' argument doesn't sit right with me. When Gator (or whatever it was called) got installed with certain P2P apps, and was specifically mentioned in the EULA, people were upset. In this case, (many / most?) people aren't. You can't have it both ways."
I don't want it both ways. I sincerely believe that if you don't agree to the terms of the EULA, don't sign it. If you don't understand the terms of the EULA, then don't sign it. If you don't understand the implications of the terms of the EULA, then don't sign it.
There are quite a few pieces of software I would have installed, except I felt the EULA was overreaching, and would leave me vulnerable, and I did not trust the source. I returned WoW without installing it for this very reason. There is other software that I installed, despite my misgivings about the EULA, because I fully trusted the source.
Caveat Emptor. Or, rather, Caveat Installor.
Current EULA available at:
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html
In its entirety. A quick read. Easy to copy and paste into a word processor for your records. Easy to see if it has changed. If they ask you to agree to the EULA again, open up a new browser window if a bunch of little screens is a pain.
The problem is not with the EULA, in this case. The problem is that people do not understand that they are entering into a legal contract, and how serious the implications are. At my business, I go over contracts with a fine-tooth comb. Why would I do any less at home?
One problem I have with the EULA is that you do not have to certify that you are the owner of the computer, or that you are authorized to make decisions on behalf of the owner. Once this happens (and it will, should this go far in the courts in the US) then WoW will lose business if they want to implement a EULA allowing something like this. The answer? Don't have terms in the license that require the consent of the owner of the computer. Do "Warden-like" activities server-side.
What's the major change to the EULA? I just checked the current EULA, looks pretty standard to me, I can't see any big difference from the original EULA (haven't been able to find a copy online, but I know I read it a couple weeks ago -- someone on a blog somewhere had it up).
"And that's exactly how the majority of spyware out there gets installed. Is it OK for Blizzard, but not OK for a P2P or web utility company to do?"
It's OK for anyone to do it, if they get your permission. The question is whether the permission is valid, i.e., has the signatory party "read and understood" the terms of the agreement? Is the knowledge base sufficient for the person signing away their protection to really understand what rights they are granting?
As consumers become more versed in spyware, and how it is installed, vendors will need to start making their EULAs plain-speech. Or need to not include such clauses in the EULA. As a (normally) savvy consumer, such a clause in a EULA is a make-or-break condition when I purchase/install software.
"There are already some big problems with ebay gold farmers.. I'd rather they had to sit at the computer to make their gold, rather than just running a script."
You mean, you'd rather have had them pay a pittance to a room full of workers than just running a script.
"Now, if this thing told you up front that it was doing all of this...
Therefore, it is spying on you actions without your knowledge. Software + spying = spyware."
For it to be spying, it would need to be dialing home with your info info. Which it doesn't. Furthermore, it is not without your knowledge... or it shouldn't be, if you read and understood the EULA, which you indicated that you had when you installed the game.
Furthermore, you entered the contract under false pretenses, since you signed that you read and understood the agreement.